sufficient to a certain point, since their method of life in itself made
them familiar with carrying arms and with riding, and inured them to
hard bodily exertions. The higher requirements of combination,
subordination, and campaigning, could not be met by such a military
system, and the consequences of this were felt disastrously in the
conduct of the war. In Switzerland and other States an attempt is made
to secure national defence by a system of militia, and to take account
of political possibilities. The great European States maintain standing
armies in which all able-bodied citizens have to pass a longer or
shorter period of military training. England alone keeps up a mercenary
army, and by the side of it a territorial army, whose ranks are filled
by volunteers.

In these various ways different degrees of military efficiency are
obtained, but, generally, experience shows that the more thorough and
intelligent this training in arms, the greater the development of the
requisite military qualities in the units; and the more these qualities
become a second nature, the more complete will be their warlike efficiency.

When criticizing the different military systems, we must remember that
with growing civilization the requisite military capacities are always
changing. The duties expected from the Roman legionary or the soldiers
who fought in line under Frederick the Great were quite different from
those of the rifleman and cavalryman of to-day. Not merely have the
physical functions of military service altered, but the moral qualities
expected from the fighting man are altered. This applies to the
individual soldier as much as to the whole army. The character of
warfare has continually been changing. To fight in the Middle Ages or in
the eighteenth century with comparatively small forces was one thing; it
is quite another to handle the colossal armies of to-day. The