Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/621

Rh     RMY, &quot;a collection of armed men obliged to obey one man&quot; (Johnson) ; &quot; a collection of troops of all arms formed into brigades and divisions, placed under the orders of one commander, with a general and special staff and administrative departments; provided with all neces sary war materiel, and destined to act offensively and defensively against the enemy&quot; (Block, Dictionnaire de ^Economic Politique). Neither definition is quite satis factory. The first is too comprehensive ; the second excludes the forces of all but highly-civilised nations. The essential characteristics of an army, by which it is distinguished from other assemblages of armed men, are its national character that is, its representing more or less the will and the power of the nation or its rulers and its organisation. The degree of the latter must depend on the age and the state of civilisation; the armies of former days we should now call mobs. The art of war has kept pace with the arts of peace, and there is as much difference between the &quot; armies &quot; of the present and of the past as between an elaborate modern machine and an early stone implement. But armies of some kind have existed since the earliest periods of man s history. At no time has industrial accumulation, with its results, progress and civilisation, been possible unless accompanied by the will and power to defend it. No nation has made -its mark in history that has not at some period of its existence been pre-eminently distinguished for martial spirit and proficiency in arms ; or been allowed to throw its full energies into the pursuits of peace till it had proved what it was able and willing to do and endure in war. In studying the progress of military art we dwell in succession on the proudest days of all the great nations of the earth, and learn that when this art was neglected the fall of the nation was seldom far distant. The art of war divides itself into two distinct branches the first relating to the military institutions of nations, the manner in which armies are raised, their composition, characteristics, organisation, and government ; the second to their employment in war. The first, commonly known as the administration or organisation of armies, is that of which this article treats. A modern army is a vast and complicated machine, so constructed that the whole aggregate force of its numerous parts may be exerted in any direction and on any point required. It is our pro vince to describe this machine in a state of rest, explaining the construction, purpose, and combination of its several parts, but leaving its action to be treated of elsewhere (see ). In the earliest stage of civilisation the army is identical with the tribe or nation. Every man is a warrior ; even women and children accompany the expeditions, prepare and carry food, and bear such share as they are fitted for. In more settled communities the able-bodied men only take the field, while the women, the children, and the aged remain at home to watch the herds and till the fields. Production is still so small that no division of duties among the men is necessary. The armies consist of the whole male population, collected under their chiefs and heads of families, or under warriors who have specially distinguished themselves. Such were some of the earliest armies mentioned in history, and such are still the armies of the savage nations with whom our colonial empire brings us in contact, well fitted for petty warfare between neigh bouring tribes or nations, when the assailants confine them selves to raids for plunder and captives, but not for distant expeditions or prolonged operations. As population and industry increase, a division of labour becomes both po- sible and necessary. A select portion of the inhabitants are specially devoted to military service, either permanently 01 for a time, while the remainder give undivided atten tion to pacific pursuits. Standing armies and permanent organisation are thus introduced, and lead to improve ments in administration and progress in the art of war, till finally we attain to the perfection of modern organisation.

History points to Egypt as the first country in which a regular military organisation was established, and the warrior class, as such, distinguished from the rest of the population. By its earliest laws the revenues of the state were divided into three equal parts, of which one went to the priests, one to the king, and one to the warriors. Sesostris seems to have been the great military organiser of Egypt. Trained by his father from childhood to war, he early distinguished himself in military expeditions against the Arabians and against Lybia, and mounted the throne with visions of universal conquest. To pave the way for such schemes, he gave Egypt a military organisation, dividing it into thirty-six provinces, and establishing a militia or warrior class, called Kalasires and Harmatopoii, to each of whom was allotted land sufficient for the maintenance of himself and his family. These formed the nucleus of the vast anny, amounting, according to Diodorus Siculus, to 600,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, and 27,000 war chariots, with which he undertook the conquest of the world. We read that the command of this army was given to the companions of the king, who, like himself, had been trained to arms under his father, and that a strict discipline was maintained and a military code established which forbade corporal punishment, appealing to the higher instincts of the soldier ; but of the details of organisation and administration by which so vast an army was moved and fed we can learn little. With this army, aided by a powerful fleet, Sesostris first subdued Ethiopia, and then extended his conquests eastward as far as the Ganges ; thence turning northwards and westwards, he swept over the Punjab, the table-land of Tartary, and the north shores of the Caspian, and descended through Sar- matia and Dacia into Thrace. Finally, he overran Asia Minor, and having conquered the Assyrian empire and seated himself, on the throne of Ninus and Semiramis, returned in triumph to Egypt after a nine years absence, and devoted the rest of his life to the peace and prosperity of his kingdom. Such are the accounts handed down by the ancient historians; and if any faith is to be attached to tnem, it seems clear that he did actually raise and maintain large armies, and with them carry out prolonged and distant expeditions, extending over several years, without interrupting the industry and progress of his own country facts which in themselves prove a high degree of national and military organisation.

The martial spirit of Egypt, however, seems to have expired with its first and greatest conqueror, and as a nation it has distinguished itself in the arts of peace rather than those of war: the country became the prey of conquerors and the battle-field of other nations, and the palm of military supremacy passed successively into the hands of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Per sians. The first two nations present no special features in their military systems; their armies, like those of Egypt, consisted mainly of infantry, horsemen and chariots form ing but a small though highly-prized element. But the Persian empire introduces us to a more highly developed military organisation, and a system of standing armio closely resembling those of modern times. Drawn from a 