Many in the struggle to obtain their daily bread, are tempted to essay the unfamiliar, and for a stipulated wage to pose as teachers to the public.
Such always will do well to write modestly in regard to sciences which they have not studied and of arts which they never practiced, and especially in future comments on Military matters, such people may profit by the appended modicum of that ancient history, which newspaper men as a class so affect to despise, and in regard to which, as a rule, they are universally and lamentably, ignorant.
What orders of Generalship can exist in the future, different from those which always have existed since war was made, viz.: good generalship and bad generalship?
Ability properly to conduct an army is a concrete thing; it does not admit of comparison. Says Frederic the Great:
“There are only two kinds of Generals—those who know their trade and those who do not.”
Hence, “a different order of Generalship,” suggested by the editorial quoted, implies either a higher or a lesser degree of ability in the “general of the future”; and as obviously, it is impossible that he can do worse than many already have done, it is necessary to assume that the commander of tomorrow will be an improvement over his predecessors.
Consequently, to the military mind it becomes of paramount interest to inquire as to the form and manner in which such superiority will be tangibly and visibly manifested, viz.:
Will the general of the future be a better general than Epaminondas, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Eugene, Frederic, Washington, Napoleon, Von Moltke?
Will he improve upon that application of the principles of strategy and tactics to actual warfare which comes down to us of today, stamped with the approval of these superlative military geniuses?
Will the general of the future know a better way for making war than acting against the enemy’s communications?