consequent adaptation of the method of using it to the qualities it
possesses, which will constitute its tactics. History shows that it is
vain to hope that military men generally will be at the pains to do
this, but that the one who does will go into battle with a great
advantage,--a lesson in itself of no mean value.

We may therefore accept now the words of a French tactician, Morogues,
who wrote a century and a quarter ago: "Naval tactics are based upon
conditions the chief causes of which, namely the arms, may change;
which in turn causes necessarily a change in the construction of
ships, in the manner of handling them, and so finally in the
disposition and handling of fleets." His further statement, that "it
is not a science founded upon principles absolutely invariable," is
more open to criticism. It would be more correct to say that the
application of its principles varies as the weapons change. The
application of the principles doubtless varies also in strategy from
time to time, but the variation is far less; and hence the recognition
of the underlying principle is easier. This statement is of sufficient
importance to our subject to receive some illustrations from
historical events.

The battle of the Nile, in 1798, was not only an overwhelming victory
for the English over the French fleet, but had also the decisive
effect of destroying the communications between France and Napoleon's
army in Egypt. In the battle itself the English admiral, Nelson, gave
a most brilliant example of grand tactics, if that be, as has been
defined, "the art of making good combinations preliminary to battles
as well as during their progress." The particular tactical combination
depended upon a condition now passed away, which was the inability of
the lee ships of a fleet at anchor to come to the help of the weather