Military Manners and Customs
LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
MILITARY MANNERS
AND CUSTOMS
BY
JAMES ANSON FARRER
AUTHOR OF
‘PRIMITIVE MANNERS AND CUSTOMS’ ‘CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS’ ETC.
‘Homo homini res sacra’—Seneca
London
CHATTO & WINDUS, PICCADILLY
1885
[The right of translation is reserved.]
[Pg iv]
[Pg v]
PREFACE.
In the present volume I have attempted within the limits of the historical period and of our European civilisation, and without recognising any hard and fast line between ancient and modern, Christian and Pagan, to allude, in the places that seemed most appropriate, to all points in the history of war that appeared to be either of special interest or of essential importance. As examples of such points I may refer to the treatment of prisoners of war, or of surrendered garrisons; the rules about spies and surprises; the introduction of, and feeling about, new weapons; the meaning of parts of military dress; the origin of peculiar customs like the old one of kissing the earth before a charge; the prevalent rules of honour, as displayed in notions of justice in regard to reprisals, or of fairness in stratagems and deception. The necessity of observing in so vast a field the laws of proportion has enforced resort to such condensation, that on subjects which deserve or possess their tomes upon tomes, I have in many cases been unable to spend more than a page or a chapter. It is easier, however, to err on the side of length than of brevity, but on whichever side I have exceeded, I can only hope that others, who may feel the same interest with myself in the subject without having the same time to give to it, may derive a tithe of the pleasure from reading the following nine chapters that I have found in putting them together.
The study, of course, is no new one, but there can be no objection to calling it by the new name of Bellology—a convenient term, quite capable of holding its own with Sociology or its congeners. The only novelty I have aimed at is one of treatment, and consists in never losing sight of the fact that to all military customs there is a moral and human side which has been only too generally ignored in this connection. To read books like Grose’s ‘Military Antiquities,’ one would think their writers were dealing with the manners, not of men but of ninepins, so utterly do they divest themselves of all human interest or moral feeling, in reference to the customs they describe with so laudable but toneless an accuracy.
The starting-point of modern bellological studies will, undoubtedly, always be the Parliamentary Blue Book, containing the reports (less full than one might wish) of the Military International Conference that met at Brussels in 1874, to discuss the existing laws and customs of war, and to consider whether any modification of them were either possible or desirable. Most of the representatives appointed to attend by the several Powers were military men, so that we are carried by their conversation into the actual realities of modern warfare, with an authority and sense of truth that one is conscious of in no other military book. It is to be regretted that such a work, instructive as it is beyond any other on the subject, has never been printed in a form more popular than its official dress. It was from it that I first conceived the idea of the following pages, and in the sequel frequent reference will be made to it, as the source of the most trustworthy military information we possess, and as certain to be for some time to come the standard work on all the actual laws and customs of contemporary warfare.
[Pg viii]
[Pg ix]
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
THE LAWS OF WAR. PAGE The prohibition of explosive bullets in war 2 The importance of the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 3 The ultimate triumph of more destructive methods 4 Illustrated by history of the crossbow or the musket 5 Or of cannons, torpedoes, red-hot shot, or the bayonet 5 Numbers slain in modern and earlier warfare 8 The laws of war at the Brussels Conference of 1874 10 Do the laws of war tend to improve? 13 A negative answer suggested from reference 13 1. To the use of poison in war 14 2. To the bombardment of towns 15 3. To the destruction of public buildings 16 4. To the destruction of crops and fruit-treesCHAPTER II.
WARFARE IN CHIVALROUS TIMES. Delusion about character of war in days of chivalry 32 The common slaughter of women and children 33 The Earl of Derby’s sack of Poitiers 34 The massacres of Grammont and Gravelines 35 The old poem of the Vow of the Heron 36 The massacre of Limoges by Edward the Black Prince 37 The imprisonment of ladies for ransom 38 Prisoners of war starved to death 39 Or massacred, if no prospect of ransom 41 Or blinded or otherwise mutilated 42 The meaning of a surrender at discretion 44 As illustrated by Edward III. at Calais 44 And by several instances in the same and the next century 45 The practice of burning in aid of war 47 And of destroying sacred buildings 47 The practice of poisoning the air 49 The use of barbarous weapons 50 The influence of religion on war 51CHAPTER III.
NAVAL WARFARE. Robbery the first object of maritime warfare 66 The piratical origin of European navies 67 Merciless character of wars at sea 69 Fortunes made by privateering in England 71 Privateers commissioned by the State 72 Privateers defended by the publicists 73 Distinction between privateering and piracy 73 Failure of the State to regulate privateering 74 Privateering condemned by Lord Nelson 77 Privateering abolished by the declaration of Paris in 1856 78 Modern feeling against seizure of private property at sea 79 Naval warfare in days of wooden ships 80 Unlawful methods of maritime war 81 The Emperor Leo VI.’s ‘Treatise on Tactics’ 83 The use of fire-ships 84 Death the penalty for serving in fire-ships 85 Torpedoes originally regarded as ‘bad’ war 85 English and French doctrine of rights of neutrals 86 Enemy’s property under neutral flag secured by Treaty of Paris 87 Shortcomings of the Treaty of Paris with regard to— 1. A definition of what is contraband 88 2. The right of search of vessels under convoyCHAPTER IV.
MILITARY REPRISALS. International law on legitimate reprisals 93 The Brussels Conference on the subject 95 Illustrations of barbarous reprisals 97 Instances of non-retaliation 98 Savage reprisals in days of chivalry 100 Hanging the commonest reprisals for a brave defence 101 As illustrated by the warfare of the fifteenth century 102 Survival of the custom to our own times 104 The massacre of a conquered garrison still a law of war 105 The shelling of Strasburg by the Germans 106 Brutal warfare of Alexander the Great 107 The connection between bravery and cruelty 110 The abolition of slavery in its effects on war 112 The storming of Magdeburg, Brescia, and Rome 112 Cicero on Roman warfare 114 The reprisals of the Germans in France in 1870 115 Their revival of the custom of taking hostages 117 Their resort to robbery as a plea of reprisals 118 General Von Moltke on perpetual peace 119 The moral responsibility of the military profession 121 The Press as a potent cause of war 122 Plea for the abolition of demands for unconditional surrender 123 Such as led to the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882 123CHAPTER V.
MILITARY STRATAGEMS. Grotius’ theory of fair stratagems 126 The teaching of international law 127 Ancient and modern naval stratagems 127 Early Roman dislike of such stratagemsCHAPTER VI.
BARBARIAN WARFARE. Variable notions of honour 156 Primitive ideas of a military life 156 What is civilised warfare? 158 Advanced laws of war among several savage tribes 159 Symbols of peace among savages 161 The Samoan form of surrender 162 Treaties of peace among savages 162 Abeyance of laws of war in hostilities with savages 163 Zulus blown up in caves with gun-cotton 165 Women and men kidnapped for transport service on the Gold Coast 166 Humane intentions of the Spaniards in the New World 167 Contrasted with the inhumanity of their actions 167 Wars with natives of English and French in America 170CHAPTER VII.
WAR AND CHRISTIANITY. The war question at the time of the Reformation 185 The remonstrances of Erasmus against the custom 186 Influence of Grotius on the side of war 187 The war question in the early Church 188 The Fathers against the lawfulness of war 190 Causes of the changed views of the Church 192 The clergy as active combatants for over a thousand years 193 Fighting bishops 193 Bravery in war and ecclesiastical preferment 196 Pope Julius II. at the siege of Mirandola 197 The last fighting bishop 197 Origin and meaning of the declaration of war 198 Superstition in the naming of weapons, ships, &c. 200 The custom of kissing the earth before a charge 201 Connection between religious and military ideas 202 The Church as a pacific agency 204 Her efforts to set limits to reprisals 207 The altered attitude of the modern Church 208 Early Reformers only sanctioned just wars 208 Voltaire’s reproach against the ChurchCHAPTER VIII.
CURIOSITIES OF MILITARY DISCIPLINE. Increased severity of discipline 218 Limitation of the right of matrimony 219 Compulsory Church parade and its origin 219 Atrocious military punishments 221 Reasons for the military love of red 223 The origin of bear-skin hats 223 Different qualities of bravery 225 Historical fears for the extinction of courage 225 The conquests of the cause of Peace 227 Causes of the unpopularity of military service 228 The dulness of life in the ranks 228 The prevalence of desertion 230 Articles of war against Malingering 231 Military artificial ophthalmia 233 The debasing influence of discipline 234 Illustrated from the old flogging system 235 The discipline of the Peninsular army 236 Attempts to make the service more popular 239 By raising the private’s wages 239 By shortening his term of service 240 The old recruiting system of France and Germany 241 The conscription imminent in England 242 The question of military service for women 242 The probable results of the conscription 243 Militarism answerable for Socialism 246CHAPTER IX.
THE LIMITS OF MILITARY DUTIES. The old feeling of the moral stain of bloodshed 250 Military purificatory customs 250 Modern change of feeling about warfare 252 Descartes on the profession of armsMILITARY MANNERS AND CUSTOMS.
CHAPTER I.
THE LAWS OF WAR.
Ce sont des lois de la guerre. Il faut estre bien cruel bien souvent pour venir au bout de son ennemi; Dieu doit estre bien miséricordieux en nostre endroict, qui faisons tant de maux.—Marshal Montluc.
The prohibition of explosive bullets in war—The importance of the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868—The ultimate triumph of more destructive methods—Illustrated by history of the cross-bow or the musket; or of cannons, torpedoes, red-hot shot, or the bayonet—Numbers slain in modern and earlier warfare—The laws of war at the Brussels Conference of 1874—Do the laws of war tend to improve?—A negative answer suggested from reference: (1) to the use of poison in war; (2) to the bombardment of towns; (3) to the destruction of public buildings; (4) to the destruction of crops and fruit trees; (5) to the murder of prisoners or the wounded; (6) to the murder of surrendered garrisons; (7) to the destruction of fishing boats; (8) to the disuse of the declaration of war; (9) to the torture and mutilation of combatants and non-combatants; (10) to the custom of contributions—The futile attempts of Grotius and Vattel to humanise warfare—The rights of war in the time of Grotius—The futility of international law with regard to laws of war—The employment of barbarian troops—The taking of towns by assault—The laws of war contrasted with the practice—War easier to
It is impossible to head a chapter ‘The Laws of War’ without thinking of that famous chapter on Iceland headed ‘The Snakes of Iceland,’ wherein the writer simply informed his readers that there were none in the country. ‘The laws of war’ make one think of the snakes of Iceland.
Nevertheless, a summary denial of their existence would deprive the history of the battle-field of one of its most interesting features; for there is surely nothing more surprising to an impartial observer of military manners and customs than to find that even in so just a cause as the defence of your own country limitations should be set to the right of injuring your aggressor in any manner you can.
What, for instance, can be more obvious in such a case than that no suffering you can inflict is needless which is most likely permanently to disable your adversary? Yet, by virtue of the International Declaration of St. Petersburg, in 1868, you may not use explosive bullets against him, because it is held that they would cause him needless suffering. By the logic of war, what can be clearer than that, if the explosive bullet deals worse wounds, and therefore inflicts death more readily than other destructive agencies, it should be used? or else that those too should be excluded from the rules of the game—which might end in putting a stop to the game altogether?
The history of the explosive bullet is worth recalling, for its prohibition is a straw to clutch at in these days of military revival. Like the plague, and perhaps gunpowder, it had an Eastern origin. It was used originally in India against elephants and tigers. In 1863 it was introduced into the Russian army, and subsequently into other European armies, for use against ammunition-waggons. But it was not till 1867 that a slight modification in its construction rendered it available for the destruction of mankind. The world owes it to the humanity of the Russian Minister of War, General Milutine, that at this point a pause was made; and as the Czar, Alexander II., was no less humane than his minister, the result was the famous Declaration, signed in 1868 by all the chief Powers (save the United States), mutually foregoing in their future wars by land or sea the use of projectiles weighing less than 400 grammes (to save their use for artillery), either explosive or filled with inflammable substances. The Court of Berlin wished at the time for some other destructive contrivances to be equally excluded, but the English Government was afraid to go further; as if requiring breathing time after so immense an effort to diminish human suffering, before proceeding in so perilous a direction.
The Declaration of St. Petersburg, inasmuch as it is capable of indefinite expansion, is a somewhat awkward precedent for those who in their hearts love war and shield its continuance with apologetic platitudes. How, they ask, can you enforce agreements between nations? But this argument begins to totter when we remember that there is absolutely no superior power or tribunal in existence which can enforce the observance of the St. Petersburg Declaration beyond the conscience of the signatory Powers. It follows, therefore, that if international agreements are of value, there is no need to stop short at this or that bullet: which makes the arbitration-tribunal loom in the distance perceptibly nearer than it did before.
At first sight, this agreement excluding the use of explosive bullets would seem to favour the theory of those who see in every increase in the peril of war the best hope of its ultimate cessation. A famous American statesman is reported to have said, and actually to have appealed to the invention of gunpowder in support of his statement, that every discovery in the art of war has, from this point of view, a life-saving and peace-promoting influence.[1] But it is difficult to conceive a greater delusion. The whole history of war is against it; for what has that history been but the steady increase of the pains and perils of war, as more effective weapons of destruction have succeeded one another? The delusion cannot be better dispelled than by consideration of the facts that follow.
It has often seemed as if humanity were about to get the better of the logical tendency of the military art. The Lateran Council of 1139 (a sort of European congress in its day) not only condemned Arnold of Brescia to be burnt for heresy, but anathematised the cross-bow for its inhumanity. It forbade its use in Christian warfare as alike hateful to God and destructive of mankind.[2] Several brave princes disdained to employ cross-bow shooters, and Innocent III. confirmed the prohibition on the ground that it was not fair to inflict on an enemy more than the least possible injury.[3] The long-bow consequently came into greater use. But Richard I., in spite of Popes or Councils or Chivalry, revived the use of the cross-bow in Europe; nor, though his death by one himself was regarded as a judgment from Heaven, did its use from that time decline till the arquebus and then the musket took its place.
Cannons and bombs were at first called diabolical, because they suggested the malice of the enemy of mankind, or serpentines, because they seemed worse than the poison of serpents.[4] But even cannons were at first only used against fortified walls, and there is a tradition of the first occasion when they were directed against men.[5] And torpedoes, now used without scruple, were called infamous and infernal when, under the name of American Turtles, they were first tried by the American Colonies against the ships of their mother country.
In the sixteenth century, that knight ‘without fear or reproach,’ the Chevalier Bayard, ordered all musketeers who fell into his hands to be slain without mercy, because he held the introduction of fire-arms to be an unfair innovation on the rules of lawful war. So red-hot shot (or balls made red hot before insertion in the cannon) were at first objected to, or only considered fair for purposes of defence, not of attack. Yet, what do we find?—that Louis XIV. fired some 12,000 of them into Brussels in 1694; that the Austrians fired them into Lille in 1792; and that the English batteries fired them at the ships in Sebastopol harbour, which formed part of the Russian defences. Chain-shot and bar-shot were also disapproved of at first, or excluded from use by conventions applying only to particular wars; now there exists no agreement precluding their use, for they soon became common in battles at sea.
The invention of the bayonet supplies another illustration. The accounts of its origin are little better than legends: that it was invented so long ago as 1323 by a woman of Bayonne in defence of the ramparts of that city against the English; or by Puséygur, of Bayonne, about 1650; or borrowed by the Dutch from the natives of
History, in fact, is full of such cases, in which the victory has uniformly lain ultimately with the legitimacy of the weapon or method that was at first rejected as inhumane. For the moment, the law of nations forbids the use of certain methods of destruction, such as bullets filled with glass or nails, or chemical compounds like kakodyl, which could convert in a moment the atmosphere round an army into one of deadly poison;[7] yet we have nothing like certainty—we have not even historical probability—that these forbidden means, or worse means, will not be resorted to in the wars of the future, or that reluctance to meet such forms of death will in the least degree affect either their frequency or their duration.
It is easy to explain this law of history. The soldier’s courage, as he faces the mitrailleuse with the same indifference with which he would face snow-balls or bread-pellets, is a miracle of which discipline is the simple explanation; for whether the soldier be hired or coerced to face death, it is all one to him against what kind of bullet he rushes, so long as discipline remains—as Helvetius the French philosopher once defined it, the art of making soldiers more afraid of their own officers than of their enemy.[8] To Clearchus, the Lacedæmonian, is attributed the saying that a soldier should always fear his own general more than the enemy: a mental state easily produced in every system of military mechanism. Whatever form of death be in front of a man, it is less certain than that in his rear. The Ashantees as they march to battle sing a song which is the soldier’s philosophy all the world over: ‘If I go on, I shall die; if I stay behind I shall be killed; it is better to go on.’[9]
How often is it said, in extenuation of modern warfare, that it is infinitely less destructive than that of ancient or even mediæval times; and that the actual loss of life in battle has not kept pace with the development of new and more effective life-taking implements! Yet it is difficult to imagine a stranger paradox, or a proposition that, if true, would reflect greater descredit on our mechanical science. If our Gatling guns, or Nordenfeldt 5-barrels capable of firing 600 rounds a minute, are less effective to destroy an enemy than all the paraphernalia of a mediæval army, why not in that case return to weapons that by the hypothesis better fulfilled the purposes of war? This question is a reductio ad absurdum of this soothing delusion; but as a matter of fact, there is no comparison in destructiveness between our modern warfare and that of our ancestors. The apparent difference in our favour arises from a practice alluded to by Philip de Commines, which throws a flood of light upon the subject: ‘There were slain in this battle about 6,000 men, which, to people that are unwilling to lie, may seem very much; but in my time I have been in several actions, where for one man that was really slain they have reported a hundred, thinking by such an account to please their masters; and they sometimes deceive them with their lies.’ That is to say, as a rule the number of the slain should be divided by a hundred.