The theoretical instruction given by our officers to the men in lectures benefits, we verily believe, the former quite as much as the latter. It benefits the officer, in the first place, because it compels him, if he is anxious to do his work well, to look up his subject thoroughly beforehand; and in the second place, because it accustoms him to speak in public more readily; and this may be of value not only to him but to the army and nation later. But his instruction should not be devoted entirely to professional subjects. It is a part of his duty to attend to the education of his subordinates in the subject of moral, and to develop by every means in his power their sentiments of bravery, straightforwardness, confidence in their leaders, and devotion to duty and patriotism. Without these as a foundation there are few who will adhere to the requirements of that discipline, without which, in the absence of religious fanaticism,[108] no difficult task in war will be carried through. There are sound grounds for saying that “if we examine the condition of the people we shall find that moral deteriorates in inverse proportion to advance in education.”[109] Officers who have to deal with such conditions must not only know how to teach thoroughly, minutely, and convincingly, but must also study all branches of their profession in such a way that by their intellectual ability they may earnestly and loyally interpret the true spirit that should animate a soldier.
In all the professions, trades, and handicrafts nowadays, with increased facilities for reading and book-learning, theory is overriding practice, apprenticeship is shortened or even dispensed with, the boy of to-day has read about and thinks he understands what the man of yesterday has been through and is still pondering over; and it is chiefly because we see so much weight being laid on theory, to the detriment of practice in the profession of arms, that we register this protest.
That we cavalry have learnt that parrot-like instruction cannot replace demonstration is evidenced by our Method of Instruction in Riding in Cavalry; in it we find first “that the instructor, after describing fully and clearly what he requires, should illustrate it,” and later, “these instructions carefully illustrated by the instructor and understood by the recruit,” etc., etc. At present in most cavalry regiments each squadron has a sand table, on which models of country are made, and map-reading is taught in a most practical manner.
The more the officers see of the men the better, and the horse gives an invaluable mutual ground of interest. We read in The Truth about Port Arthur:
The battle for these hills was severe, and the coolness of our men was remarkable. If any of them ran away, or if any panic set in, it was the fault of the officers, for any officer whom the men respect and love in peace-time can rely on their steadiness in war.
How many Russian officers know and care for their men? For some reason or other they rarely mix with or among them, and know nothing of them or their habits, and bitter are the fruits they reap in war.
This is plain speaking, but it is in accordance with the dictates of common-sense that the superior and inferior must become of one mind in order to carry out their duties adequately.
By whatever means it may be done, it is the duty of every officer to check cynicism and grumbling amongst his subordinates, and to develop a high moral. It has been said that it is the “soldier’s privilege to grumble.” This is an absolutely wrong view; it is, instead, his glory not to grumble, but to face every kind of danger and trouble unflinchingly, and to make the best of it. Small worries overcome prepare the mind for facing great emergencies.[110]
With such a feeling throughout a regiment, what may it not do? Every man becomes a hero and a leader. The conduct of 500 heroes may temper the mind of an army.