One of the most irresistible propensities of the human character, is that which Phrenologists designate by the name of "Combativeness." Man, in his actual condition, is a fighting animal; and whatever may be the lucubrations of vegetarians and Peace societies, his pugnacious disposition is likely to endure, at least until that milennial period, in which he shall turn his swords into ploughshares and his spears into pruning hooks. Casting a glance at the still smoking ruins of Sebastopol, around which and for which half a million of lives have been sacrificed, we can hardly admit that that blessed time is at hand; it is unfortunately more probable that for several centuries yet, the nations of the earth will have recourse to those gentle persuaders, cold steel and villainous saltpetre.

It is indeed sad to think, that history is little else but the record of sanguinary strife. If the human blood shed on our planet, in mortal combat, from Abel to this day, had imparted to it a permanent stain, perhaps the whole earth would be clothed in a crimson robe, and old ocean himself would be dyed with the gory hue. What region of the Old World has not furnished its many battlefields? And even in this new and virgin continent, who knows how many dusky warriors the old primeval oaks of the wilderness have seen perish in general conflicts or in single combats, of which neither history nor tradition has preserved the mem

VOL. XXVI-1

ory? Perhaps there is not a single dell in our now peaceful woods which has not been the scene of some desperate struggle. It may be that this Western world had also its Alexanders and Cæsars, cotemporary with or even anterior to those of old Europe, and not inferior to them in genius or achievements.

But deplorable as are the evils of war, it must be confessed, even by the most tender-hearted philanthropists, that they have not been unmixed with good. War may justly be ranked among the most powerful civilizing agents that ever operated to bring the world to its present condition; and it is the cultivation and perfection of the science of war which

ensures the existence of modern civilization. At the present day, all the savage hordes that ever poured from Scandinavia or Scythia, would be utterly unable to sweep over Western Europe as they did over the Roman Empire; and the larger their numbers, the more certain would be their destruction.

We propose in this article, briefly to pass in review some of the changes which have taken place in the art of war, from the earliest day to the present time; and especially to discuss the modifications which have been produced in the tactics of armies by the improvements in Artillery, embracing under this generic term all the weapons the purpose of which is to throw projectiles.

The word "Artillery," according to Webster, is connected etymologically

with art, artist-indicating instruments formed by art. According to another author, it is derived from "arcus" and "telum." It is certain that the term artillerie was applied to bows and arrows long before the invention of gunpowder.

The first weapons used by men were probably clubs, and stakes sharpened at one end, and hardened by fire. Stones and darts were employed as projectiles, and at first thrown by hand, but their very limited range when thus used, suggested the advantage of artificial means; a very moderate degree of ingenuity would produce the sling and the bow. These were the weapons of the lightarmed troops among the ancients. Indeed, the bow kept its place until a comparatively modern period; and it is said to be used, conjointly with fire arms, by the Circassians to this day. The artillery of the ancients consisted in balistic machines, of two kinds. Those having but one arm were derived from the sling, and those having two arms from the bow.

There is a great deal of confusion in the terms used by ancient authors to designate the machines then in use. The terms ballista and catapulta are employed to denote machines of both kinds. Vitruvius, under the names of ballistæ, catapulta, manu-ballista, scorpios, describes only machines with two arms, derived from the bow; of these the ballis ta were the most powerful and served to throw stones. The engines called Tormenta would seem to designate machines with one arm, and derived from the sling.

The tormentum owed its power to the elasticity of twisted fibres. A wooden arm or lever was inserted between cords made of guts or horse hair; and these were twisted by turning the wooden arm as many times as possible. The machine was then ready for use. In order to discharge it the arm was drawn down to a horizontal position, by means of a windlass, and a stone was placed in a receptacle made for it at the end of the arm. This arm was then suddenly liberated, and would fly forward with great force until it encountered a horizontal beam

placed to stop its revolution. The stone would thus receive a circular motion in a vertical plane, and would be projected at a very great angle. Among the Romans the strongest of these machines threw projectiles of about 400 pounds in weight to a maximum distance of about 8 or 900 yards; but their aim was very uncertain. They were sometimes called "onagri.”

The catapulta, (with its modifications,) was a kind of cross bow upon a very large scale. It was less powerful than the ballista, but much more accurate. It was mounted upon a horizontal axis, and turned upon a vertical pivot. By means of this double articulation, it could be discharged in every direction and at any angle of elevation. When aimed nearly horizontally its maximum range was be tween 250 and 350 yards.

These different engines were used for a long period, only in the attack or defence of fortified towns or camps. But when the Romans found themselves opposed to the Parthians, who never waited for the shock of the legions, they felt the necessity of providing their troops with some heavy machines, in order to keep at a distance an enemy who discharged clouds of arrows while retreating. Tacitus says that Corbulo, in order to cover the construction of a bridge over the Euphrates, held the Parthians in check by means of ballista and catapulta, which threw stones and darts to a distance much greater than the range of the Parthian arrows. These machines soon came into general use in the Roman armies, and answered the purpose of modern field artillery. They were placed in the rear or on the flanks of the line of battle. In the time of the Emperor Hadrian, there were fifty-five ballistæ and ten onagri on wheels to each legion. It is related that the troops of Vitellius at the battle of Bedviacum, transported machines upon the main road where an open space allowed the free action of their darts, which previously broke against the trees without doing any harm to the enemy. A ballista of the 15th legion, of enor mous size, crushed the enemy's line with the huge stones which it cast.