The  truth  is  that  we  have  not  fought  European
troops  since  the  Crimean  war.  When  the  Germans  won
the  great  war  of  1 870-1  we  more  or  less  modelled  our
Army  on  theirs.  It  was  not  unnatural  that  we  should
take  as  an  example  the  Army  which  had  given  the  most
brilliant  results,  but  many  soldiers  insist  upon  the  fact


THE  STAFF  29

that  we  have  not  used  this  European  training  for  fifty
years,  and  they  argue  that,  since  this  is  the  case,  we
should  consider  now,  whether  its  training  should  not  be
modified  to  meet  the  class  of  work  which  it  has  per-
formed during  that  period.  Too  blind  an  adherence  to
a  European  model  tends  to  make  an  army  "  stiff-
jointed,"  and  they  would  recommend  elasticity  as  the
great  essential.  An  officer  of  high  rank  gives  his  ideas
thus  :  "  The  Boer  war  has  taught  us  that,  as  the  German
system  was  the  best  up  to  1871,  so  the  Boer  system  is
the  best  in  the  present  day.  Had  we  defeated  the
Boers  with  ease,  then  I  should  have  triumphantly
pointed  to  the  European  training  as  the  main  factor  in
our  success.  But  as  we  didn't,  I  at  once  became  con-
vinced that  the  system  was  wrong  and  antiquated  before
the  new  system  of  the  brethren  "  {i.e.,  the  Boers).  The
only  logical  corollary  to  this  is  that  we  should  train  our
army  a  la  Boer.  Our  soldiers  should  all  be  horsemen
and  all  marksmen.  It  is,  of  course,  the  ideal  army,  but
the  cost  would  be  excessive.  Still,  it  is  easy  to  see  that,
while  very  few  of  my  correspondents  go  so  far  as  to
boldly  propose  that  the  Boer  system  should  be  adopted
in  its  entirety,  yet  in  their  inmost  hearts  they  appear
convinced  that,  with  some  modifications  to  meet  our
special  wants,  we  should  make  the  Boer  organisation  our
ideal.
