cover, leggings instead of boots, and a rifle instead of a carbine,
would give us a formidable force of 20,000 men who could do all that
our cavalry does, and a great deal more besides.... The lesson both of
the South African and of the American Civil War is that the light
horseman who is trained to fight on foot is the type of the
future."[17] This is the opinion of a very competent civilian who
deeply studied the South African campaign. But it is the opinion of a
civilian.

On the other hand many experts, most of them military men, insist that
the day of shock tactics is far from done. They instance the charge
before Kimberley as a case in point. Obviously all the elements of
disaster were there. Only a brilliant use of the traditional cavalry
attack saved the situation--and Kimberley. Situations of that sort
are bound to arise again. How is the mounted infantryman, lacking the
_elan_ and spirit of the cavalryman, to meet the situation?

[Page Heading: TOO MUCH CAUTION]

French takes an attitude somewhat midway between these two extremes.
He, of all men, has developed cavalry most successfully on what might
be called mounted infantry lines. That is to say, he has taught his
men to fight on foot, to take cover at every opportunity, and to
master the whole art of reconnaissance. But at the same time, he
objects to extremist[18] views as to the abolition of the cavalry
spirit. "One or two distinguished foreign soldiers who have publicly
commented upon that campaign have said that what is termed the
'Cavalry Spirit' is opposed to the idea of dismounted action. They
hold that the cavalry disdain to dismount, and they see in riding the
end instead of the means. They consider that events in the Far East