Alexander : a history of the origin and growth of the art of war from ...

660 IS THE ART OF WAR IMPROVINGabove the rank and file ofgenerals is something greater thanthis. It is the broad conception of how to do the work inhand, and its execution with intelligence and boldness. Inthis there is scarcely a principle illustrated by Napoleon, inwhich Alexander is not his prototype.We are apt to think that the art of war is constantly improving.This is at least open to doubt. There has been anextraordinary advance in the last generation in the appliancesof destruction, in the devices for making war horrible. Butcan it be claimed that the art of war, in its leading principles,has advanced pari passu with the mechanics of war ?To such a state of uncertainty have modern inventions reducedeven the wisest of soldiers that no one can predict onwhat lines the next great war will be conducted. To be saidto improve, an art must become more jDositive, more certain.To-day we are in doubt as to many almost elementary factorsin our problem. We do not know whether the best formationfor infantry will be an open or a close order ; whether the newpowder may not call for still other tactical formations ;whether cavalry has succumbed toarms of precision, or willbe of more service in the future than in the past ; whetherhigher explosives than gunpowder will be availed of ; whetherthe spade is to play a greater or lesser role than it has of lateand a host of other important questions are being forced onthe military man by the rapid sequence of inventions.At seamatters are still more doubtful. Expensive ironclads proveunseaworthy ; big guns are damaged by a few trial shotstorpedo warfare is on trial. What will the next naval wardevelop ? There was more certainty in arms in Alexander'sera than there is to-day.For the demands to be made uponit, Alexander's methods were as perfect as Napoleon's, thoughno doubt inadequate to our present wants. It might be saidthat the art of war is in a less exact and satisfactory condi-