manoeuvres, where criticism and blame had been almost synonymous, and
it therefore shirked independent bold action, and kept far in the
rear, and as much as possible out of sight."

French, in fact, is convinced that the "cavalry battle" is by no means
a thing of the past. Until the enemy's cavalry is overthrown, the work
of the mounted infantryman cannot begin. So long as opposing countries
train efficient cavalry, the clash of the rival horsemen is the
inevitable preliminary of any campaign.

At the same time his views on the specialisation of training are far
from extreme. The cavalry spirit must be encouraged: but it must not
be permitted to overshadow that wider _camaraderie_ which is the Army
spirit. "It is not only possible but necessary," he says, "to preach
the Army spirit, or, in other words, the close comradeship of all arms
in battle, and at the same time to develop the highest qualities and
the special attributes of each branch. The particular spirit which we
seek to encourage is different for each arm. Were we to seek to endow
cavalry with the tenacity and stiffness of infantry, or to take from
the mounted arm the mobility and the cult of the offensive which are
the breath of its life, we should ruin not only the cavalry, but the
Army besides. Those who scoff at the spirit, whether of cavalry, of
artillery, or of infantry, are people who have had no practical
experience of the actual training of troops in peace, or of the
personal leadership in war. Such men are blind guides indeed."[19]

For cavalry, then, Sir John French sees a brilliant future. "The
opinion which I hold and have often expressed is that the _true rôle
of cavalry on the battlefield is to reconnoitre, to deceive and to
support_. If the enemy's cavalry has been overthrown, the rôle of