CHAPTER XXIII

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMIES

An Army in action is a special instance of what may be termed a _dynamic crowd_--that is, an assemblage of men united for common action and inspired by the same ideas and desires. Throughout history, certain characteristics have been exhibited by assemblages so united, however differently they were composed, and no matter under what conditions, or towards what ends, they were acting. Popular assemblies in epochs of change, spiritual ebullitions such as have marked the origin, or revival, of religions, political parties, and even juries, boards, and committees, all show similar phenomena. But the most striking instances of dynamic crowds are mobs collected for action. Such mobs have usually worked harm, when they must be called criminal mobs, but have often been violent with good intentions, as when the Paris mob took the Bastille. Other instances of non-criminal mobs actuated by high enthusiasm are those roused for the First Crusade by Peter the Hermit, or that incited by Mark Antony, at the funeral of Cæsar, to avenge his murder.

Of nature akin to crowds are unions of persons holding similar opinions, even when not actually in touch with each other, or physically assembled. Such unions have produced, and will yet produce, some of the greatest changes in history, like the rise of Christianity, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French Revolution. In all ages, systems of religious thought have created such dynamic aggregates, often world-wide and endowed with persistent vitality. The most striking examples are the unions of nations and races which form the Mohammedan world, or the Roman Catholic Church.

But a combination of armed men for the purpose of fighting has always been the commonest and strongest form of organized assemblage. Such a combination is the highest example of a dynamic crowd, and has effected the most rapid and striking changes which the world has undergone.

The essential underlying character of a “dynamic crowd” of any sort is that it possesses _religion_ in the sense defined by a great French psychologist, as “placing all the resources of the spirit, all the submission of the will, all the ardour of fanaticism, at the service of a Cause, which then becomes the guide and end of all the ideas and actions of the assemblage.”

A crowd may be looked upon as a sort of new composite personality born of the union of a number of men whose individual qualities will not by any means represent the character of the crowd they form. The crowd may be said to have a collective soul which will cause it to act in a way in which the individuals composing it would not, and indeed could not, act. This soul is generally inferior to the average character of the persons forming the crowd, but at times rises to heights impossible to them. Thus crowds have often committed atrocities from which their component individuals would have shrunk, but other crowds have shown incredible enthusiasm and devotion, and performed acts of heroism and self-sacrifice, to which no individual in them could ever have risen singly. Examples of the crimes of crowds are patent in history, but their heroisms also may be found, most of all in the innumerable instances when troops have faced death without flinching, and thereby gained victory for their Cause.

The characteristics of crowds may be glanced at. They will be seen to be analogous to those which animate troops. Crowds act on instinct and are incapable of reasoning, so that they are essentially irresponsible, while very easily influenced by suggestion. Their impressions are extraordinarily infectious, for Man is an imitative animal, and still more so is Man in bulk. Hence, suggestions spread like fire, and impressions and tendencies to action are communicated with the greatest rapidity, for, in a crowd, reason has little influence on the action, and self-concern, so potent in the individual, is effaced in the confidence born from a sense of the power of numbers. So we may note among soldiers at one time the spread of panic, and at another the not less infectious courage due to combination. Both are capable of producing striking action for harm or for good, and action quite impossible for the individual when alone.

All crowds, even those of animals, have an overwhelming craving to be led. A leader is needed to strike the spark to kindle the mass, give shape to its idea, and instigate its action. A crowd loves to adopt a leader to be its despot, and will be obedient and even servile to him who shows he can command. The leader influences the crowd by three means--_assertion_, _repetition_, and _example_. All these means are necessary to implant ideas in an unreasoning mass, and initiate unanimous action towards their realization. The _assertion_ must be concise and simple, and should epitomize the ideas which form the “religion” of the crowd. _Repetition_ is necessary to drive these ideas home. Reasoning is out of place, and has the worst effect, for crowds cannot reflect, and are as impatient of appeals to their reason as of opposition to their desires. The _example_ of the leader exercises a potent influence. A crowd is easily impressed by his coolness, courage, self-confidence, determination, and vigour in utterance and action, and even by his personal appearance.

Leaders are generally men who are themselves carried away by the ideas they are striving to put in effect, although some have been calculating, cool, and astute. They are generally men of action, and action impresses when reason is unavailing. One quality leaders must have, and that is Will Power. A mere crowd has none, for the will of the individual becomes effaced when once he is united with his fellows, and the will of the leader must replace it, flashing out from his voice and his bearing, and felt in his words and his deeds. But the crowd will also react strongly on the leader, and may inspire him to a pitch far above his natural scope, but only on condition that the leader has among his qualities and his aims some that are germane to the “religion” of his followers, for the “Soul of the Crowd” to work on.

What has been said of crowds and mobs applies in the main to the organized and trained mob which has become an army. A mass of soldiers differs from a mob mainly in the habits acquired by discipline, the facilities for action afforded by organization, and the ideal of character which their profession, and their very uniform, suggest to them to live up to. The discipline of the soldier, if it is to be worth anything in a crisis, must be so habitual as to be not reasoned, but instinctive. Under the strain of war, whether due to danger or to privation, habits can be relied on when reason fails. Discipline is not only the instinct of obedience, but that of reliance on leaders and comrades, both factors of enormous value in battle. It is this which gives troops the advantage over a mob. Psychologically they are both “dynamic crowds,” but the mob is devoid of the higher qualities which discipline has implanted in the soldier, and which the influences of his profession have rendered largely instinctive.

It should be noticed that in crowds, where the individual varieties of character are lost in the “crowd soul,” the oldest racial characteristics come out. This is the more so in the moments when danger inhibits reason, and instinct alone reigns. History teaches us very clearly how persistent these characteristics are in the people as a whole, and they are naturally brought out in a high degree by War. Cæsar tells us that the Gauls “are very courageous and impetuous in the attack,” and two thousand years later the “_Furia Francese_” is still their characteristic. A French writer on the wars in Spain talks of the “_Bulldog Ténacité_” of the British, a quality which has been attributed to them for centuries.

The reason for this is clear if we suppose that the crowd possesses the sum of the qualities of its members, for the different individual qualities of each will bulk but little compared to the huge total of the qualities common to all, of which the older and deep-rooted race characteristics will necessarily form a large part.

Thus history shows unmistakably that the military qualities of a nation change but little with time. The conduct of its soldiers in past wars is likely, therefore, to be repeated in future fighting, although organization, training, and leading may differ, and, to some extent, modify the result.

In the case of an Army, the necessity of Will Power in the leader cannot be too much emphasized. It is of far more importance than mere intellect. Will power alone can go far, as we see in the cases of Charles XII. and Blücher, whereas resolution is apt to be “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,” where the intellect is more developed than the will.

Some Military Leaders have been energetic and resolute, but wanting in continuity of effort, and little capable of thought and reflection. Of this type were Ney and Murat, amazing in the conflict, heroic in danger, but, in less inspiring moments, failures. These men need a greater man to lead them. Such a man, in whom Will Power and Intellect are both dominant and are equally balanced, constitutes the higher and rarer type of leader. In him the Will Power is more lasting, if less fiery; he can reflect, assume responsibility in cold blood, and carry out long plans in spite of opposition. The rule of such leaders over their followers is not liable to sudden collapse, but often outlives failure or ruin. Of such are those who have changed the face of the world and won undying fame--Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Cromwell, Napoleon--men whose prestige is not buried in their grave, but still exercises over living men an influence hardly less real than during their life.

This prestige, unexplainable as it may be, constitutes the dominating influence of the leader over his following. Built on success and renown, it is made up of admiration, love, and sometimes fear, but is always unreasoned and idolatrous. It is by the domination of prestige that a leader is able to impress his feelings, his aims, and his will on those he leads. The exertions to which Hannibal and Napoleon could compel their men were incredible. A leader is at times obeyed by his followers as the lion-tamer by his lions, although often with as little means of coercing them, or even of saving himself from their jaws. Nor is the effect of prestige limited to the leader’s own following; it is as much felt by his opponents. Napoleon’s arrival on a battlefield was, Wellington said, worth a reinforcement of forty thousand men, and many of his successes in war were due to the fact that his enemies were frightened by his name, before they began to fight. Probably only two of his opponents escaped this influence--Blücher, in whom hatred left no place for fear; and Wellington, who said before the Peninsular War that he thought he could beat the French because he was not afraid of them.

The prestige of Hannibal, like that of Nelson, always weakened the resolution of his foes. Dundonald with one ship chased a Portuguese squadron from Brazil to Europe. Drake’s very name was an abiding terror to Spain. “Stonewall” Jackson’s reputation was a constant alarm to Lincoln and the Federals. Lee’s personality was one of the main factors in staving off defeat from the South.

When the crisis of her fate arrives, a country can only pray that a _Leader_ may be granted her. History can teach us that England has seldom prayed in vain. Cromwell, Marlborough, Clive, Wellington, the men of the Mutiny, and, above all, the long line of Admirals which culminates in Nelson, were living answers to her prayers.

APPENDIX A

ORIGIN OF MILITARY TERMS

This chapter is intended to give an explanation of the way in which military terms--especially those connected with Organization--came to have their present technical meaning. Their derivation and, in some cases, the date of their introduction are given. Many of these terms have been noticed in the body of the text, and their origin mentioned. They are here collected for facility of reference.

It will be noted that most of our commonest military terms are of considerable antiquity, and that they are essentially cosmopolitan words, widespread in use through Western Europe. Most of them were introduced in Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

The terms are arranged alphabetically in four lists:

1. Ranks and Offices.

2. Names of the different varieties of Troops, and of their Units and Formations.

3. Arms and Accoutrements.

4. Miscellaneous.

1. RANKS AND OFFICES

Adjutant: French _adjudant_; Latin _adjutant-em_--_adjutare_, to assist. An assistant. An office introduced in the English Army in 1660.

Bombardier: from _bombard_, old name of a cannon (_bombo et ardore_, with noise and heat); Latin _bombus_, a humming noise--_ardor_, heat.

Captain: French _capitaine_; Late Latin _capitan-us_--_caput_, head. A chief.

Captain-General: name of Commander-in-Chief till Marlborough’s time. Probably taken from the Spanish _Capitan-General_.

Colonel: French _colonnel_; Italian _colonello_, a little column; Latin _columna_. Column-leader.

Cornet: French _cornette_, a hornshaped flag for Cavalry; Latin _cornu_, a horn.

Corporal: Old French _corporal_ (16th cent.); Latin _corporalis_, belonging to the body, _corpus_; or, by confusion with _corporalis_, from French _caporal_; Italian _capo di squadra_ or squad-leader, from Latin _caput_, head.

General: _i.e._ general officer, or officer with general command over all troops, and not over those of his own Arm only.

Généralissime: the Supreme Commander of Armies. A term adopted by Richelieu, and used in France to-day.

Lance-Sergeant (or Lance-Corporal): from _lanz pesado_ or dismounted lance, superior to the ordinary infantry with whom he had perforce to march on foot after losing his horse.

Lieutenant: French _lieu-tenant_; Latin _locum tenens_. A deputy, of the Captain, the Colonel, or the General.

Major: originally Sergeant-Major (17th cent.).

Major-General: originally Sergeant-Major-General (17th cent.).

Marshal: a farrier. Old French _mareschal_; Low Latin _mariscalcus_; Teutonic _maraschalk_, from _mara_, a battle-horse, and _skalk_, a servant.

Officer: French _officier_; Late Latin _officiar-ius_--_officium_. An office-holder.

Private: _i.e._ a _private_ man, not an officer (used from 16th cent.).

Quarter-Master: a _quarter_, _i.e._ one-fourth of a locality, came to mean generally a _district_, and then a _lodging_ for soldiers assigned to that district.

Rank: French _rang_; Old German _hrang_, a ring, and later a row, of men.

Sapper: French _sapeur_--_saper_, to dig; Italian _zappa_, a mattock.

Sergeant: Old French _serjent_, _servjent_, or _servient_; Latin _servient-em_--_servire_, to serve.

Sergeants-at-Arms (_Servientes ad Arma_) were instituted by Richard I. during his Syrian campaign as his personal guard.

Soldier: Old French _soldier_; Latin _soldarius_--_solidarius_--_sold-us_, pay--_solidus_, a solid piece.

Staff: what the General leans on--a stick; from Aryan root _sta_ = stand.

Trumpeter: French _trompeteur_. [See Trumpet.]

Yeomen of the Guard: Personal Guard of Henry VII. The first regular military organization in England (1485).

2. VARIETIES OF TROOPS, AND THEIR UNITS AND FORMATIONS

Ambulance: French _ambulance_, movable hospital; Latin _ambulare_, to go--_ambi_, around, and root _ba_, go, as in Greek _bainein_.

Army: French _armée_; Latin _armata_, past participle of _armare_, to arm, an armed force.

Army Corps: German _Armee-Korps_, from French _Corps d’Armée_--_Corps_ from _corpus_, body.

Artillery: French _artillerie_; Italian _artilleria_, the art of the _artillarius_, or _articularius_, from _articula_, dim. of _art-em_. Used for _guns_ 16th cent.; for the _Arm_ 18th cent. [See Chap. XVII., par. 1.]

Battalion: French; Italian _battaglione_--_battaglia_ (16th cent.). [See Battle.]

Battery: French _batterie_--_battre_; Late Latin _battere_, beat; Latin _batu-ere_.

Brigade: French (16th cent.); Spanish _brigade_--_brigar_, to brawl; Italian _briga_, a quarrel. Hence a body of contesting troops.

Carbineers: Cavalry armed with the _carabine_. Old French _calabrin_--_calabre_, war engine, from Low Latin _chatabula_; Greek _kataball-ein_, throw down.

Cavalry: French _cavallerie_ (16th cent.); Italian _cavalleria_; Late Latin _caballarius_--_caballus_, a nag.

Column: Latin _columna_, a column, from _columen_--_culmen_, height--cf. _collis_, hill.

Command: Old French _commander_, to order; Latin _commendare_, to entrust to one’s charge--later, to order; from _cum_ and _mandare_, to order.

Commissariat: from commissary, a person entrusted; Latin _com-mittere_, to commit to.

Company: Old French _compainie_; Late Latin _companio_--_cum pane_, with bread, _i.e._ a messmate.

Cuirassiers: French _cuirasse_ (15th cent.), from _cuir_; Latin _corium_, leather.

Dragoons: from carrying a short musket called a dragon. Italian _dragone_; Latin _draco-n-em_, a dragon.

Echelon: French _échelon_--_échelle_, ladder; Latin _scala_, step--_scando_, climb.

Engineer (16th cent.): _engynour_ (16th cent.), earlier _engigneor_; Old French _engineur_; Late Latin _ingeniator_ (used in 12th cent.), from _ingeniare_, from _ingenium_, whence Engine. [See Chap. XVII., par. 1.]

File: number of men in depth (1598); a row, from French _file_; Latin _fila_, a thread.

Fusiliers: men armed with the fusil, a firelock (17th cent.). Latin _focile_, a flint, from _focus_, a hearth-fire.

Gentlemen-at-Arms: originally a band of Horse, created 1509; subsequently Court Officers.

Grenadiers (late 17th. cent.): men armed with the grenade, invented 1594. Spanish _grenada_, pome-granate, the fruit full of seeds, from Latin _granum_, grain.

Guards: soldiers who guard the Sovereign. Guard, French _garde_, is the Teutonic _ward_, from _war_, to defend, connected with _ware_ and _wary_.

Hussars: Hungarian _Huszar_, from _Husz_, twenty. Every twentieth man served in the Light Cavalry on the Turkish frontier.

Infantry: French _infanterie_; Italian _infanteria_; Latin _infant-em_, child (16th cent.), _i.e._ one who cannot speak--_in_, not, _fari_, speak.

Lancers: men armed with the lance. French _lance_; Latin _lancea_; Greek _lonche_.

Line: French _ligne_; Latin _linea_, a line or string--_linum_, flax.

Musketeers: men armed with the Musket, which see.

Ordnance Corps: the R.A. and R.E., which were controlled by the Master-General of the Ordnance, an officer created as early as 1414.

Patrol (late 17th cent.) French _patrouille_: (1539)--_patrouiller_, to paddle in mud--Old French _patoueil_, mud.

Platoon: French _peloton_, a little ball--_pelote_, a small bundle; Latin _pila_, a ball.

Rear: Old French _riere_, behind; Latin _retro_, back.

Regiment: French _régiment_, rule; Latin _regiment-um_--_regere_, rule.

Rifles: a body of soldiers armed with rifles. Rifle is short for rifled gun; to rifle means to groove--_rive_, to tear.

Squad: French _escouade_; Italian _squadra_, a square; Latin _ex-quadra-re_, to square, from _quatuor_, four.

Squadron: from Italian _squadrone_, a large square. [See Squad.]

Train: French _train_; Old French _trahiner_, to trail; Low Latin _trahin-are_, from _trah-ere_, to draw.

Troop: French _troupe_, connected with root of _drive_, German _treiben_, a drove; Italian _truppa_, by some connected with Latin _turba_, a crowd, by a not uncommon process of bringing the “r” before the vowel [cf. _brent_, burnt].

Vanguard: shortened to van; Old French _avant garde_--_avant_ is Latin _ab-ante_, from in front. [See Guard.]

3. ARMS AND ACCOUTREMENTS

Accoutrements: French _accoutrement_; _accoutre_--_ad_, to, and _coutre_, from Latin _custos_, keeper.

Ammunition: store for defence. Latin _ad-munition-em_--_munire_, fortify, defend.

Arms: French _armes_; Latin _arma_.

Arsenal: _arx navalis_, naval citadel, or from an Arabic word.

Ball: French _balle_; Old German _bal_, from a Teutonic root found in _bulge_, bole.

Bayonet: French _baïonnette_, from Bayonne, where first made.

Belt: Anglo-Saxon _belt_; Irish _balt_--from which Latin _balteus_, a belt, probably derived.

Bullet: French _boulet_, a little ball--_boule_, a ball; Latin _bulla_, a knob.

Cannon: _i.e._ the gun-barrel; Latin _canna_, a hollow cane.

Carbine: see Carbineers.

Carriage: Old French _charrier_, or _carier_, to carry. [See Cart.]

Cart: dim. of _car_; French _charette_; Old French _carete_; Low Latin _careta_--_carrus_, a car.

Cartridge: corruption of _cartrage_; French _cartouche_, a charge wrapped up in a cornet of paper; Latin _carta_, paper.

Cuirass: see Cuirassiers.

Equip: Old French _esquiper_, to equip; Norse _skipa_, to arrange, shape.

Gun: Old English _gonne_; Welsh _gwn_; Gaelic _gunna_. Derivation unknown, perhaps from Old French _mangonel_; dim. of Latin _mangonum_, Greek _mangonon_, a war machine.

Halberd or Halbard: a long-handled weapon; _helve_ or handle; _barde_, axe.

Haversack (used in 18th cent.): from German _haver-sack_, sack for oats.

Helmet: Anglo-Saxon _helm_; Teutonic root _hal_ or _kal_, to cover.

Howitzer: German _hautbitze_ (so written by Gen. Wolfe about 1750), older _hauffnitz_, from _haufnice_, a sling. A Czech word of time of the Hussites (15th cent.).

Magazine: storehouse. Spanish _magacen_; Arabic _makhzan_, storehouse.

Matross: old word for a gunner. German _matrose_; Latin _matarius_, a man who uses a mat or hammock.

Mortar: called from resemblance to apothecary’s mortar. Old French _mortier_; Latin _mortarium_, from _martulus_, a hammer.

Musket: French _musquet_, from the Spanish, meaning a sparrow-hawk, probably from Latin _musca_, fly, as being the smallest of hawks. First used for the firearm, 16th cent.

Ordnance = Artillery, from the _ordinance_ to regulate calibre and size of guns (15th cent.).

Pistol: from the city of Pistoia in Italy, where made (early 16th cent.).

Pontoon: French _ponton_; Italian _pontone_, a great bridge; Latin _pont-em_, bridge.

Pouch: Old French _pouche_--_poche_, pocket; Celtic _poca_, a bag.

Shell: Anglo-Saxon _scell_, a thin covering; Teutonic root _skal_, to separate, peel off; a hollow ball.

Shrapnel: a shell with balls inside, invented by General Shrapnel, British Army (early 19th cent.).

4. MISCELLANEOUS

Base: area on which army relies for supplies and reinforcements. Formed from analogy with the base of a triangle, by the German military writer, Willisen, 1820. Greek _basis_--_bai-no_, go.

Battle: French _bataille_; Italian _bataglia_; Late Latin _battalia_, _batt-ere_, from Latin _batu-ere_, to beat.

Billet: French _billet_, a ticket for quarters; hence the quarters themselves.

Bivouac: German _bewachen_, to watch.

Bugle; short for bugle-horn, the horn of the bugle or wild ox. Old French _bugle_; Latin _buculus_, dim. of _bos_, ox, a bullock.

Camp: French _camp_; Latin _campus_, field.

Colours: first use temp. Elizabeth for military flags, because of their gay colours. French _couleur_; Latin _color_.

Communications (used by military writers in 19th cent.): Latin _communicare_, _communis_, common.

Condottieri: Italian mercenaries. Latin _conductitii_, led men.

Crew: or detachment working a gun, from French _crue_, from _croître_, to grow.

Drum: from Teutonic _trom_.

Fife: Old German _pfifa_, a pipe.

Logistics: French _logistique_; what are now called Staff duties, from _logis_, quarters, _i.e._ the Q.M.G.’s duties.

Order: French _ordre_; Latin _ordin-em_.

Parade: Spanish _parada_, ready, or adorned, from _parar_, to get ready, to adorn, also to parry; Latin _parare_, to prepare. Brought from the Netherlands to England in 1625.

Reconnoitre: French, to make oneself acquainted with--_connaître_; Latin _cognoscere_, know.

Strategy: Greek _strategos_, a general--_stratos_, army--_ago_, lead. The art of the General.

Tactics: Greek _taktike_ (_techne_), _tasso_, arrange. The tactical art, or art of drawing up soldiers for battle.

Trumpet: French _trompette_, dim. of _trompe_; Spanish _trompa_, perhaps from Latin _tuba_.

War: Teutonic _werre_, strife, connected with _worse_, and German _wirren_, confuse.

APPENDIX B

REMARKS ON MILITARY NOMENCLATURE

In any Science the first step towards systematizing it is to form a definite terminology on systematic lines. Nor is this mere pedantry. Words are the expressions of thought; without defined terms there can be no clear thinking.

None can have read much, or written at all, on military matters without noticing the unsatisfactory nature of many of the terms used. Few are short, crisp, and definite, like _Troop_, _Squad_, _Staff_. Compare these with _Regiment_, _Division_, _Artillery_. Confusion also constantly arises from the indeterminate meanings of words like _Commander_, _Section_, _Brigade_, _Unit_.

Other words are cumbrous, like _Medical Services_ (or _Officer_), _Mounted Infantry_, _Ammunition Column_, _Lines of Communication_, _Mounted Brigade_, _Veterinary Services_ (or _Officer_). Some single words are urgently needed instead of these.

In British Establishments, simplification would result if there were one word for _Drummers_, _Buglers_, and _Trumpeters_, and one for all personnel except Officers. _Dismounted men_ is a poor name for men who were never mounted.

The organization of Artillery cries out for some systematized terms. _Field Artillery_ includes in foreign armies the batteries of Field Guns, Howitzers, and Horse Artillery, but is generally used for those of Field Guns only. A general word to include guns and howitzers is needed. _Wagon_ is used for transport wagons and ammunition wagons, and a single word for the latter is much needed; the American word _caisson_, or the old English _tumbril_, might be used. A better word is wanted for _Machine-Gun_, which is not a gun, but a rifle. _Divisional Artillery_, a unit of several Brigades under a General, might have a special name. _Divisional Ammunition Column_ seems a very long term when writing Orders.

_Cavalry_ and _Infantry_ might well be usually replaced by _Horse_ and _Foot_. The words _Troop_ and _Squadron_ might be used without the addition of “Cavalry,” as indeed _Company_ and _Battalion_ without adding “Infantry.” It would be convenient if, in the British Service at any rate, the word _Regiment_ always connoted Horse, to avoid adding “Cavalry,” just as Battalion connotes Foot.

Turning to ranks of Officers, the word _General_ might be used instead of _G.O.C._ The term _Commander_ is used indiscriminately, and might be confined to Subordinate Commanders of Corps and Divisions, leaving _Commander-in-Chief_ for the Army Command, with _Supreme Commander_ where there are several Armies. A single word for the _Divisional Commander_ would be convenient, like _Brigadier_ for the Brigade Commander. _Commanding Officer_ should always imply the C.O. of a Cavalry Regiment, Infantry Battalion, or Artillery Brigade, and might be rendered, as in French, by the word _Chief_. The word _Captain_ does not imply the important and similar functions of the Squadron, Company, and Battery _Leader_, who is often a Major; and the word _Leader_ might be adopted. The good old words “Cornet” and “Ensign” might be reintroduced.

_D.A.A.G._ and _D.A.Q.M.G._ are deplorable titles, as are also _Inspector-General of Communications_ and _Commander of Lines of Communication Defences_.

We have _Gunner_, _Driver_, and _Sapper_; why should not _Trooper_ be officially used for private of Cavalry?

It would be convenient if the word _Train_ were officially used for all the non-fighting Trains.

Now that the whole force of a great nation includes several Armies, it is desirable to have a separate word for the whole _Army_. Perhaps _Host_?

A short word (like _Base_) is much needed for the _L. of C._ and the _Advanced Base_. Perhaps _Rear-Routes_ and _Fore-Base_ might be used?

A better word for _Advanced Guard_ would be _Foreguard_, on the analogy of Rear-Guard and Vanguard. The cumbrous expression “Commander of the Advanced Guard” might then be replaced by _Foreguard Chief_.

The awkward French word _depôt_ (with its accent) might be replaced by the Old English word _stow_, which we find surviving in place-names, where it meant a military depôt during the English conquest of Britain.

The importance of shortening and defining military terms does not rest only on the convenience of writers and readers. The advantage in saving time, and conducing to lucidity, cannot be overestimated when Orders are to be written and read, often under difficulties and in a hurry.

A scientific system of Military Terminology would thus prove of real value in war. The above observations are made in order to call attention to this matter, in the hope that official action may one day lead to a more logical system of military terms.

_Printed and bound by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks retained.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.

Page 84: In this eBook, the table uses a Key in order to minimize the width of the columns. In the original book, the column headings appeared within the columns.

Page 183: “The Regiment was 100 strong“ probably should be “1000“.