Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/626

564 of tlie old freemen gave place to the classification of the people into lords, gentlemen, and -serfs, corresponding dis tinctions in arms and equipment followed; the horseman became the representative of the upper classes, the foot soldier of the serfs and peasants. The feudal system could only be maintained by the superior fighting power of the ruling class. All that money and art could do was there fore lavished on the equipment of the lord and his imme- 4iate retainers, while the peasant remained ill-armed and comparatively defenceless. The strength of armies was measured by the number of men-at-arms. Efforts to arm and train the mass of the people commonly originated with the kings, in their desire to form a more national force than the semi-independent feudal levies, and received small encouragement from the nobles. When they suc ceeded it was a sign of weakness in the feudal chiefs, and of a more popular government. In no country were the lower orders so warlike and used to arms as in England; and historians have shown how essentially popular was the rule even of our most absolute monarchs. Two characteristics of feudalism were especially adverse to progress in military art : the undue preponderance given to one arm, numerically weak; and the impossibility of unity of action or combined organisation among so many independent and rival authorities. Among the causes tending to bring about a better military system must be reckoned the Crusades, those marvellous efforts of fanaticism that still excite a wonder and admiration mixed with pity. It is true they left no mark at all proportionate to the vastness of the efforts. The armies of the Crusaders, as they took the field, were mere tumultuary masses, as destitute of order and discipline as their leaders were ignorant of military science. But for the first time large bodies were kept continuously under arms, and some sort of organisation necessarily developed itself. The knights and leaders becoming conscious of their own numerical weakness, bestowed more care on the arms and discipline of their men, and learnt their value ; and the first true infantry of the feudal times dates from the Crusades. An event of very different character, but not less exer cising a most important influence, was the grant of the franchise to cities and towns, resorted to by Louis VI. of France in 1135 to establish a counterpoise to the power of the barons, and afterwards adopted in Germany and England. These enfranchised cities raised their own levies (mihce des communes), and thus furnished the king with a military force independent of and antagonistic to the feudatories, and consisting mainly of an infantry superior ill quality to the feudal vassals. Another cause was the ever-increasing employment of mercenaries, due partly to the growing wealth and luxury which made personal ser vice irksome, partly to the proved unfitness of feudal armies for continuous operations. Lastly came the inven tion of gunpowder, which, though it exercised no imme diate effect on tactics, and had little to do with the over throw of feudalism, ultimately revolutionised the whole art of war.   The fall of feudalism as a military system, though gradual, as all such changes are, may be said to have been accomplished in the middle of the 15th century. Two tanding events occurring about that time gave it its death-blow armies. the defeat of the Burgundian chivalry by Swiss infantry in the three successive battles of Granson, Morat, and Nancy ; and the establishment of &quot; compagnies d ordonnance&quot; by Charles VII. of France. The first destroyed for ever the overwhelming prestige attached to the mailed horsemen, and restored infantry to the place which it had held in ancient armies, and has never lost since; from the second dates the origin of standing armies in Europe. Charles VI. had already sought to substitute a permanent national force f qr- the foreign mercenaries, who were as great a curse to their employers as to their enemies; but the attempt was interrupted by his insanity, followed immediately by internal discord and disastrous wars with England. It was not till sixty years later that Charles VII., having firmly established his power by a series of successes over the English, carried out his father s idea; and (in 1445) organised fifteen &quot; compagnies d ordonnance^ to be main tained in peace as well as in war. Each company con sisted of 100 men-at-arms, or &quot;lancers,&quot; with their attend ants, viz., squire, groom or batman, and three archers the whole force amounting to 9000 men. Three years later, he organised a corresponding force of infantry, 16,000 strong, named franc-archers. The superiority of a standing army over an assemblage of feudal militia was soon, proved, and other states imitated the example of France. A change took place in the military system of Europe; the practice of calling out the feudal contingent ceased,, and permanently paid troops, regularly disciplined and organised, were substituted for them. These troops were not always national. At first they were largely composed of the old bands of wandering mercenaries ; but the pro portion of foreigners decreased as the feudal spirit gave way to a more national one. The development of the new system may be dated from the beginning of the IGth century. Armies, no longer undiscipjined feudal levies, were permanently organised iix companies and in regiments. The use of fire-arms became general, though it was long before the pike was entirely sup planted. The distinctive duties and value of cavalry and infantry were recognised, and regular tactics introduced for the different arms, the battalion (originally lattagiia t battle array) becoming the recognised tactical unit for infantry, as distinguished from the administrative organisa tion by regiments and companies. &quot; Articles of war &quot; were. issued to their several armies by Ferdinand of Spain, Francis I. of France, and Charles V., and a regular disci pline thus established. From this time to the outbreak of the great French Revolution but little change took place in the manner of raising armies, though their tactical organi- Progre sation varied according to the arms in use. Armies were organi raised mainly by voluntary enlistment, compulsory levies tion - being only resorted to under pressure of war. Usually the king or his commander-in-chief contracted with a nobleman, of repute as a warrior, or of large possessions, to raise a regiment the nobleman to receive a certain sum down and an annual allowance for its maintenance, and to have tho command of it. He in his turn engaged &quot;captains,&quot; some of whom brought companies with them, others raised companies, under his authority, and others, again, merely commanded the men he himself had raised. Royal officers, &quot;com missaries,&quot; were appointed to muster these regiments periodically, and see that the colonels fulfilled their share of the contract; and, on the other hand, to issue the pay and provide for the subsistence of the forces. The regi ments were sometimes raised for a fixed time, and disbanded at the expiration of that time or at the close of the wai. but as standing armies became general, they were main tained permanently, the command being transferred an occasion required; and, as the terms of the contract were always favourable to the colonel, the command of a regi ment was a valuable piece of court patronage. The earliest form of organisation, both in the cavalry and infantry, was the company, originally representing the group of men who- followed a knight to battle and fought under his banner, and later the bands of mercenaries who served under a &quot; captain.&quot; These companies were afterwards grouped and organised in regiments, but for a long time each company continued to carry its own banner, indicating its real origin. Both companies and regiments varied in strength according 