§1. It is worthy of inquiry and useful, not merely pleasant, to ask whether ancient military service is comparable with ours. Many admire everything ancient and despise our own things. Others walk a middle path; some disdain ancient military service in comparison with ours. There are five things to be considered in military service: namely, the levy, organization, arms, the battle line, and discipline. I have spoken about the levy: ours is more expeditious and, if the other things are added, is a levy of the best soldiers, because it consists of volunteers. Although a great part of the soldiers is drawn from the dregs of mankind, many princes, counts, noblemen, and rich men nevertheless enroll in military service and bring it about that this refuse of the common people is governed and submits to organization and discipline. Concerning organization also there is no question: the ancients have theirs and our men ours, but ours is exact and in part better, since they place the best men at the front and intend men under pressure not to yield but to be aided by those who come to their support. The question, therefore, concerns arms.
§2. Justus Lipsius is regarded as a most prudent judge of these matters, and he inclines strongly toward the ancients. Against our firearms he sets slings and javelins. First, he says that the lead was liquefied. Lucretius:
A leaden bullet too,
rolled through a long course, grows liquid.
Ovid:
It burned no otherwise than when the Balearic sling
casts lead: it flies and grows incandescent as it goes,
and beneath the clouds finds fires which it did not possess.
Lucan:
Then firebrands and stones fly, and bullets, loosened through the expanse
of air and melted by their hot weight.
Statius:
Bullets destined to burn through the void of heaven.
Indeed, the same poet compares them with a thunderbolt:
The flying bullets imitate lightning.
Perhaps you do not put faith in poets? Let our philosopher Seneca join them: “Motion thins the air, and the thinning kindles it. Thus a bullet cast from a sling liquefies, and through the friction of the air drips as though by fire.” Something of this kind is also written elsewhere in Aristotle. Yet this does not destroy the force of the missile; rather, it came fiery into the body in this manner.
Virgil:
And with liquefied lead he cleaves the middle of his adversary’s temples
and stretches him out, extended over a great space of sand.
Behold, it kills with one blow. Nor do I marvel at David, who as a young man and one of the slingers struck down the enormous Goliath with this weapon. And so that you may know its force once for all and fully, take these words of Diodorus Siculus about the Balearic islanders:
βάλλουσι λίθους πολὺ μείζους τῶν ἄλλων, οὕτως εὐτόνως, ὥστε δοκεῖν τὸ βληθὲν ἀπό τινος καταπέλτου φέρεσθαι.
“They cast stones”—for you know that stones too, and not only lead, were sent from the sling—“much larger than other men do, so powerfully and vigorously that the missile seems to be carried from some catapult.” As you see, he compares it with an engine of war, and he adds:
ὥστε θυρεοὺς καὶ τὰ κράνη καὶ πᾶν σκεπαστήριον ὅπλων συντρίβειν.
“So that they shatter shields, helmets, and every covering of armor.” I deny—deny—that our firearms can have greater force, perhaps not even equal force. I except those which they call muskets. Now in one respect slings certainly prevail: they are carried much farther and do harm. Which of our firearms preserves its direction and force beyond two hundred or three hundred feet? It loses force or strays if you extend the range. But the sling’s missile carried and retained force to six hundred feet, as is clearly written in Vegetius: “Archers or slingers,” he says, “placed brooms—that is, bundles of brushwood or grass—as a mark, so that they were six hundred feet distant from the mark, in order that they might more often strike the mark with arrows or at least with stones aimed from the staff-sling.” Here he joins the sling with arrows and gives both the distance which I stated; others even place slings ahead of arrows and maintain that their missiles travel farther. In Strabo you will read, μακροβολωτέραν τὴν σφενδόνην ἢ τόξον: “that the sling casts farther than the bow.” In Dio:
οἱ σφενδονῆται μακροτέρω τῶν τόξων ἱέντες, πάντα καὶ τῶν καταφράκτων ἱππέων ἐλυμαίνοντο.
“The slingers, casting farther than the archers, injured every man, even among the cuirassed cavalry.” He says this in his account of Marcus Antonius’s campaign against the Parthians, who nevertheless, it is agreed, were well armed and employed arrows with the greatest skill. Yet the slings prevailed over them, as Xenophon too expressly writes in his account of his Greeks:
μακρότερον γὰρ οἱ τε Ῥόδιοι τῶν Περσῶν ἐσφενδόνων καὶ τῶν πλείστων τοξοτῶν.
“For the Rhodians slung farther than the Persian slingers, and indeed farther than most of the archers.” They therefore cast far; but did they also cast accurately? Everyone affirms it, especially concerning the Balearic islanders, and says that they had learned those aimed blows from infancy. Indeed, it is also read in the Holy Scriptures that the inhabitants of Gibeah, numbering seven hundred, cast stones so accurately with slings that they could strike even a hair.
He extols the force of slings because the lead liquefies, because it cleaves the temples, because a sling-stone breaks shields and helmets, and because the force of the blow is carried to six hundred feet. The blow is also accurate, for the Gibeonites could strike even a hair.
Those forces seem great to me, but by no means equal to our firearms. For lead’s growing liquid or a reed’s burning is an indication of great violence, but not the greatest. Acestes casts into the air, and what happens is regarded as a portent:
For the flying reed burned amid the liquid clouds,
marked its path with flames, and, consumed,
withdrew into the thin winds.
Yet that reed was not carried more violently than our wall-breaking artillery, whose balls do not mark their path with flames, although sometimes combustible things are present. But, to confess the truth, the matter of the flame and the liquefied lead leaves me doubtful. Motion thins the air and renders it hot; but it is difficult to understand how heat so vehement could arise at such speed and in so very brief a time when the missiles do not strike a hard body. Experience, indeed, testifies to the contrary. Those struck by slings and arrows are harmed by a wound, not by a burn. But if the temples are cleft by liquefied lead, they must necessarily be burned and, when scorched, give off the smell of burning. If lead liquefies, iron also, when it is sent more violently from an engine, ought to grow incandescent, for the force of a firebolt cast from an engine is greater than that of a bullet from a sling. But experience teaches that the iron is not hot, for, when lodged in shields and wounds, it would burn them and destroy the wounded with immense pain. As it is, however, no one complains of burning but of the wound. Even those wounded with muskets, although the leaden pest remains lodged in their viscera, are nevertheless not burned; and yet the bullets from fire-vomiting engines ought to be hotter. The arms of the ancients, therefore, ought not to be preferred because their missiles take fire. Otherwise, when we strike a spark from flint, we would have to believe that its impetus was greater than when an artillery piece is discharged. Another cause of these effects must therefore be sought, which is not part of my undertaking. This is sufficient: ignition is not a sign of the greatest violence.
His argument from what is said about the breaking of shields is better. But not even on this account ought slings to be preferred to our artillery. In Virgil a brave warrior cleaves the temples with liquefied lead. And:
We have seen Goliath, fearsome in body and spirit,
fall by a feeble hand; against him a boyish right hand
hurled a little stone with the whirring of a sling,
and pierced his bare forehead with a penetrating wound.
The stone lodged in the Philistine’s forehead; but if David had used a firearm, the blow would have passed through the whole head and, carried far onward, would also have wounded another man in its path. Lipsius therefore deservedly grants greater force to muskets. As for what Diodorus Siculus relates about the Balearic islanders, it is not remarkable that large stones broke defenses of bronze which were borne against pila and arrows, since the coverings were not very strong. Meanwhile, I deny that, once the coverings were broken, the stones penetrated bodies; the force of the blow was broken by the coverings. Slings therefore did not penetrate bodies which were moderately covered but struck them and harmed them in the manner of stones hurled by hand. Hurdles, cloaks, and the curtains of tents were placed in their way. As to Vegetius’s statement that a sling casts to six hundred feet, it is certain that firearms carry their blow farther, and a blow which penetrates. A sling will not pierce a board one inch thick, but an iron ball will pass through many at once.
It is agreed, moreover, that slingers cast farther than archers. For Homer’s Ulysses sufficiently shows that arrows did not carry their blow far:
δουρὶ δ᾽ ἀκοντίζω ὅσον οὐκ ἄλλος τις ὀϊστῷ.
“But with a spear I cast as far as no other man does with an arrow.” Certainly no one casts a spear so that it flies beyond the range of an artillery piece. At times a pilum or arrow passed through shield and cuirass, but more frequently it remained lodged in them. So that you may see clearly how greatly our firearms excel arrows, two matters must be considered. First, pila and arrows lodged in shields so that they often burdened the bearer. But those shields were made of boards, wickerwork, and leather, all of which are playthings if referred to our military service; the smallest handgun, of the size of a palm, would penetrate them. Thus two thousand musketeers would easily defeat two veteran Roman legions drawn up in formation and armed in their own manner. But if one chose to set cavalry against them, one thousand cuirassiers would suffice against ten thousand men, or two legions, because Roman coverings do not withstand firearm balls and cavalrymen need not come within the cast of a missile.
Bernardino de Mendoza, part 1, chapter 52, teaches how great the forces of our firearms are: “At that time I presented to His Majesty an artillery piece of a new kind, cast from metal, whose price is forty crowns and whose weight is thirty pounds. The ball which it casts is one pound. It is, however, carried with such violence that it passes through a wall two geometrical feet thick. This is remarkable, since the instrument is so light and the ball heavy in proportion to it. Moreover, it does not easily grow incandescent, which is to be valued greatly. These pieces can be useful in a fleet, even if the ships are small, nor do the sides of any ships seem so strong that they will not perforate them. If several are joined together, they can also be employed in breaking walls.” So great is the force of a firearm. Finally, with whatever force you hurl a sling-bullet against a tree, it rebounds; every firearm ball lodges in it. No other proof is required. It is permissible to set up anyone who denies this as the target. Nothing is more violent than the petard, which was invented a few years ago, for it carries off and bursts through gates. Ignited powder casts down mountains and ramparts together with their bastions.
§3. From this I also conclude that Roman arms ought not to be taken up again or mixed with ours. The outstanding judgment of all our commanders maintains this against certain writers, for they care neither for arrows, nor javelins, nor pila. First, because a pilum can be seen, it can easily be avoided. Second, pila can scarcely be cast beyond forty paces; the pilum-men can therefore be killed before they can harm the enemy.
§4. Besides the fact that the Roman legion cannot inflict harm, it is also naked if set against our firearm troops; therefore it can in no way hold its ground.
§5. Strength of body was required in Roman and Greek military service; in most parts of ours, dexterity is required instead. Provided that men know how skillfully to brandish a sword and handle a firearm, they easily learn the rest.
§6. The shield was the principal defense of ancient military service, and therefore ἀσπίζειν καὶ ὑπερασπίζειν, “to shield and to shield on behalf of,” is applied by a Greek proverb to every kind of defense. But now no shield can be made which is trustworthy and turns away the iron balls of muskets or their leaden ones. For since a shield, so that it may cover the whole man when he inclines slightly, has a length of four feet, as Lipsius teaches in book 3 of On the Roman Military—and since a larger one exceeds this by a palm, while its breadth is two and a half feet—a soldier cannot carry such a shield by hand at the present time, because it must be four times thicker than it was formerly. For it must be made either of willow, fig, linden, birch, elder, or poplar, from which shields were made formerly, or of hard woods, oak, heart-of-oak, or cedar. If it is made of the softer woods, it must be one foot thick, for a musket-ball penetrates beyond that. If it is made of heart-of-oak, the wood will be heavier than can conveniently be carried, turned, and employed in defense. But if the shield is made of bronze or iron, the plate must necessarily be of a thickness which is excessively heavy for one hand. We easily gather that the shields of the ancients were not very thick from the fact that they were often made of wickerwork and covered with hides, and even those were considered heavy. Theocritus:
Ἀχθόμενοι σακέεσσιν βραχίονας ἰτείνοισιν.
“Their arms burdened by wicker shields.” But it would be ridiculous to set men armed with these against our firearms.
§7. Our soldiers generally cannot be sufficiently protected against firearm shots. For the armor of the ancients is useless, since it is easily penetrated. If it is made twice or four times stronger, it will be useless because of its weight. It has therefore seemed better to have unencumbered soldiers than immobile ones. Accordingly, our military service is more dangerous than ancient service. Although in former times men sometimes fought for whole days, battles now are concluded very rapidly, because naked men clash with naked men. More steadfast spirits are therefore required in it.
§8. Hence those who have the greatest number of cuirassed cavalrymen easily conquer, because, trusting in their defenses, they break through everything with the greatest boldness.
§9. Finally, this one thing must be lamented in our military service: although in former times defensive arms by which bodies were covered were devised against every offensive weapon with which life was assailed, now, so many years after firearms were invented for the killing of man, no cuirass or shield has yet been invented which can protect a man while he fights and charges. So much more ingenious is human nature for its own destruction than for its safety. But if any king could make an impenetrable shield or cuirass from some mixture of metals and of moderate weight, assuredly with one army he would easily obtain dominion over the world.