readers will scarcely give him credit for having acted up to his declaration. In what way, they may ask, is this assurance of conciseness to be reconciled to his copious dissertation (p. 24.) on the subject of military oaths; to a disquisition equally ample (p.28.) on the slow steps by which the antients arrived at so simple a process as the use of grind-stones; and in the third place, to a very elaborate essay (p. 78.) on the practice of hospitality, combined with an inquiry into the origin of medicine? We feel no temptation to follow the author into these minute details, and gladly direct our attention to a topic more intimately connected with his main subject, the armour of the antients. Less difference of opinion, he remarks, prevails with regard to the shape than concerning the materials of the antient armour, The buckler of the Greeks and the Romans, of a round or rather oval make, was generally composed of thin boards glued together, covered with thick leather, and incased in a circular frame of metal, which was more or less valuable according to the rank of the owner. The target, or parma, differed from the common buckler only in being an oblong, with the four corners sloped off. The usual shield of the northern nations was the scutum, which was broad on the upper and middle part, but ended in a point below. The Roman sword had its handle smooth, the blade short and strong, and the Spanish blades were two-edged. It hung on their right side, while their javelins (six in number) were suspended on the left. Their dress was of woollen cloth, consisting, as is well known, of a short garment (tunica) while in the field, and of a longer (taga) in time of peace. The tunica in its improved shape was made to cover the neck, and to come half-way down the thigh. The military cloak worn by all ranks was called the sagum The distinctive mark of an officer was on the top of the helmet, the crest of which represented an animal, and was equivalent in its effect to the modern gorget or to the epaulette. For their standards the Romans had a superstitious veneration, being accustomed to swear by them, to die in their defence, and to adorn them with laurels after victory. The cohort which had lost its standard was excluded from the body of the camp, and fed on barley till it succeeded in redeeming its character.

In analyzing the developement of tactical knowlege, the author gives to Cyrus the merit of the earliest combinations in the movement of large bodies of troops. Until then, war had been chiefly carried on by an opposition of corporeal

*Other writers call the cloak of the Generals a Paludamentum, and allow crests to the helmet of private men, though less shewy than those of the officers.

strength,

strength, and a display of insulated exertion. Cyrus is said to have improved the military weapons, as well as to have been the first to form soldiers into compact bodies, and to make them advance in concert at the voice of their leader. The use of cavalry and of chariots received, it is probable, considerable improvement under his direction: but when we reflect on the backward state of society in the age of Cyrus, and the doubtful authority on which his improvements are transmitted to us, we may fairly conclude that his military system was very imperfect, and greatly inferior to that of the Greeks; among whom it appears that youths were first regularly trained to warlike exercises. The order of battle is so seldom described by Greek historians, that we have no little difficulty in arriving at a knowlege of their arrangements; but they may be said in general to have been simple, consisting of the application of a few plain ideas, such as stationing the cavalry on the wings, the heavy-armed infantry in a phalanx, and the light troops under shelter of the phalanx. The hilly surface of Greece presenting many positions in which cavalry could not act, the proportion of the latter in point of numbers was generally small; for even in the army which followed Alexander to the conquest of the East, only a seventh part (5000) were horsemen. The most singular circumstance in M. AUDOUIN's account of Grecian tactics is his silence regarding the talents of Epaminondas. He pays a compliment in general terms to the virtue and ability of that commander, but appears scarcely aware of the surprizing effects which he succeeded in producing by the application of intense thought to the movement of military bodies. We meet with no acknowlegement that he was the first who enabled his troops to vanquish superior numbers by dint of skilful disposition; and that the rules put in practice by him may be said to constitute the elements of that system of attacking by columns, which revolutionary France adopted with such fatal energy against her German antagonists.

The Roman history appears to have engaged a larger share of M.AUDOUIN's attention, and the merits of the various characters who are conspicuous in it seem much more familiar to him. Of the wonderful talents of Cæsar, whether in movements, in sieges, or in the day of battle, he frequently speaks in terms of just admiration; and with regard to Hannibal, he very properly fixes on his campaigns with Fabius as affording a finer exem plification of military skill than his most splendid victories. Never, he says, was any war more replete with useful lessons, and never was any described by a more careful narrator, for Polybius had visited in person the scenes of Hannibal's exploits. The long and successful resistance, opposed by Ser

Kk 4

torius

torius to the Roman power, affords a memorable proof of what may be accomplished by activity and local knowlege. It may be said of him as of Cæsar, that his marches, his encampments, his battles, his attacks by surprize, all denoted a continued and vigilant attention to the nature of the country in which he fought. — It was a fixed rule with the Romans to entrench themselves wherever they encamped. After having pitched on a spot of ground which, in addition to other advantages, possessed the command of water, the soldiers employed themselves in digging the intrenchments. A part of their officers meanwhile made an allotment of the interior space, so as to give to each body of two thousand an extent of a thousand feet in length by one hundred in breadth, which left a surface of five square feet to each soldier and his baggage. Thirty horse were allowed one hundred square feet. The Grecian camps were round, the Roman were square; in both, patroles of infantry did duty within the camp, while the outposts were intrusted to cavalry. The summer-camps of the Romans, castra astiva, were slight: but their winter camps, castra hiberna, were commodious, and thoroughly fortified..

He

The other topics in antient history which attract the observation of M. AUDOUIN are the origin of signals, (p. 175.) the use of warlike music, (p.112.) the nature of the balista or projectile machines, (p.178.), and finally, (p.210.) the connection between hostile proceedings and the functions of diplomacy. On each of these subjects he brings to bear a large share of erudition, but is apt to fall, as in other parts of the book, into minute and tedious digressions. A less qualified encomium, however, is due to his account of the pretorian guard, and of its dangerous excesses (p. 230.) in the history of the lower empire. Having expatiated on the licentiousness of these degenerate bands, he takes leave of classic ground, and pursues his researches through the gloomy period of the middle age. appears to us sometimes fanciful in tracing analogies between the military appointments of antient and those of modern times; for we can hardly agree with him (p.233.) that the office of pretorian prefect gave rise to that of minister at war, or the station of legionary prefect to that of directing commissary. It is still more amusing to observe in him the influence of national vanity, as soon as he begins to treat of the habits of his ancestors. The Franks of the fifth century are not, in his opinion, an assemblage of undisciplined barbarians :-no, says he, blended with the Gauls, with the remains of Roman garrisons, and with the Greeks of the Phocion colony settled at Marseilles, they inhe rited the military knowlege of all these nations, and their courage made them worthy of the succession. It is, therefore, no illusion

to

to infer that all which antiquity possessed that was grand and illustrious, is to be found in the blood, the manners, and the institutions of the French. In vain shall we look for it elsewhere; for of all the nations who co-operated in the overthrow of the Roman power, the French alone have remained a people.' Notwithstanding these marvellous qualities in his countrymen, the author finds it necessary to acknowlege that they, like their neighbours, made no remarkable improvement in the art of war during the long period of eight centuries. He accounts for this, very properly, not by deficiency of ardour in the people, but by a total want of system on the part of the government. Kings in those days were little more than Generals ad interim; their only source of income was their demesnes; their only ministers were those of their household; taxes and standing armies were unknown. In the obscurity of these illiterate ages, it is scarcely possible to trace the origin of military ranks; and it is almost a vain etfort to search for any thing like method or arrangement in the appointment of armies before the fifteenth century. They were levied in consequence of a ban, or general proclamation; each baron led forth his vassals; and the inhabitants of the districts through which they passed were obliged to supply them with provisions. If the danger became imminent, the ban or proclamation was repeated under the title of arrière-ban, and all persons able to bear arms were then obliged to march. Forty days were for a long period the allotted time of service; until, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, Philip the Fair enacted an extension of the period, and began to set an example of regular pay to his troops. The independent spirit of the northern tribes long resisted the imposition of taxes; and for many ages the dues collected were merely local, consisting of tolls on bridges, harbours, or public fairs. Even when arising from a different source, and when appropriated to national purposes, the assessments still retained for ages a character of locality, each district or province performing for itself the task of collection. Of the slow increase of the royal revenue, we may have some idea on being informed that the income of Philip Augustus, who was so conspicuous among the sovereigns in the thirteenth century, was below 5000l. sterling a-year, equivalent perhaps to 100,000l. in the present day. The amount continued nearly the same for a century, till Philip the Fair found means, by a remarkable combination of artifice and vigour, to make his subjects submit to more taxes in a single reign than his predecessors had been able to impose in the course of ages. The task was difficult and dangerous: but Philip had the art, as soon as he had overcome the first obstacles, to make all parts of the com

plicated

plicated machine of government subservient to his views; em ploying his revenue to increase his troops, and his troops to increase his revenue. Among his successors, we meet with little display of talent till the reign of Charles V., the pupil of adversity, and the restorer to France of the provinces which had been conquered in an age of calamity by our Edward III. Charles was remarkable, in an æra of royal combatants, for not attempting to be the leader of his armies, and for confining himself to the task of equipping and provisioning them; a service in which he was eminently skilful.

The use of gunpowder made its way very slowly in an age that was adverse to innovation, and wedded to antient habits. The cross-bow-men, in particular, long adhered to their favou rite weapon, which seemed to them to possess all the advantage of fire-arms. It consisted of a bow of steel, crossed by a stick of wood, with a cord and trigger; and the distance te which it threw arrows, and even darts, was very considerable. In addition to these offensive arms, the bowmen used a pike or halbert for close action; and it was not till a comparatively late period, posterior even to the adoption of the bayonet, that the disuse of the pike became general. Till the close of the 16th century, most of the nations of Europe continued to employ their old weapons; a practice in which the very imperfect construction of fire-arms tended to confirm them. Musquets were not in these days of such a shape as to be carried with ease in the hand; they looked like cannons in miniature; they needed, before firing, to be carefully fixed in a particular position; and previously to the use of flints, the soldiers were under the necessity of carrying lighted matches. However, when a decided preference was at last given to fire-arms, the effects of the change were such as to revolutionize the whole system of attack and defence. The lofty walls of stone in fortified towns were suc ceeded by mounds of earth, the circuit of which was extended, and the outworks multiplied to retard the approach and fatigue the patience of the assailant. During the prevalence of the feudal system, the poverty of the governments and the conse quent shortness of campaigns had prevented the military service from becoming a profession. Fortification was little under stood, the warlike machines of the antients were forgotten, and the contest was generally brought to issue by a battle in a plain :- but, when a standing army was constituted, and pay was regularly afforded, war became an employment for life, like any other; and the various subdivisions of miners, engineers, and artillery-men, were established. The case with which the antient castles of the barons, and the fortifications of the towns, were now reduced by the artillery of the kings, was a principal