sent by the King of Sweden to assist the Emperor against the Turks. M. de Louvois questioned him, he added, at considerable length concerning the manner in which military enterprises were carried on in that country. And, in reply, on that occasion he said to M. de Louvois, amongst other things, that the Emperor had removed the pikes from all his infantry, and in place of them had provided the men with muskets; that the Emperor had been induced to make this very decided change in weapons in consequence of the superiority of the Turks over the Christians as swordsinen; and particularly, because the Turks both used their sabres with special success against pikes, and they were in great dread of fire; that, after mature reflection upon these facts, the Emperor had arrived at the determination to abolish the pikes, and to increase in a proportionate degree the number of the musketeers—that is, to increase in his army the power of firing upon the enemy; also that, for these same reasons, they formed their battalions and squadrons in closer order than formerly, and so left to the Turks on the field of battle less favourable opportunities for taking them in flank when an engagement at close quarters had become general.

“He added, in his conversation with me, that M. de Louvois had deliberately weighed all these considerations in connection with some other practical arguments against the use of the pike; that the minister had laid the whole question before the King; that the King, while he confessed himself to be powerfully impressed by what he had heard, could not resolve to introduce so great a change; and that the minister dared not to urge the matter any further, being unwilling to charge himself with such a responsibility as must ensue, should the result of the proposed change be proved by the course of events to be unfavourable. Then, an incident which took place at the battle of Fleurus, in 1690, revived the consideration of the relative importance of the pike and

the musket. This incident was the comparative ease with which in this battle certain battalions of Dutch pikemen were disposed of, while some German infantry without any pikes, but able to maintain a heavy fire, offered a much more formidable resistance.

"Such then, for the time, was the position of this important question. And now I proceed to state what I have yet to add on this subject. When carrying the war into the Barbet Alps, Marshal de Catinat took their pikes away from his soldiers, on the plea that they were of but little avail for mountain combats, and he substituted muskets in consequence of the much greater advantages to be obtained from the use of fire-arms. Then this same change was maintained in the wars in Italy, because there the country is much broken, and does not admit of free action for large armies on widely extended plains. The final issue was that the King, after having taken counsel with many generals, who held various opinions, and after he had most carefully compared whatever arguments and facts had been adduced on either side, accepted the views of Marshal de Vauban, who advocated the abolition of pikes, in opposition to those of M. d'Artagnan, afterwards Marshal of France, under the name of Montesquiou, and then Captain of the French Guard. The consequence was that, in 1703, the King of France (Louis XIV.) issued an ordonnance by which all pikes were abolished in the infantry, and guns were substituted in their stead. This, then, is the epoch of this comprehensive change-one of the most important that for very many years had been introduced into the military system of France."-[Daniel, Milice Franç, t. ii., p. 390.]

Two points here are specially observable. In the first place, in the time of which this author treats, as in the middle ages, the grand consideration that first claimed attention from military men was the discovery of such means as would render infantry invincible when opposed to cavalry; and this still

continues to be the fundamental problem of military science. Secondly, we see the fire-arm constantly advancing and rising higher in reputation and esteem. Since the close of the 16th century, the merits of the gun were gradually better understood, and the consequent estimation in which that weapon was held steadily though slowly made progress. In order to encounter cavalry with a good hope of success, in the 16th century, reliance was placed upon a mixed infantry force composed of pikemen and arquebusiers, the pikemen generally being considered the more important arm. With the succeeding century came the change in favour of fire-arms, which led eventually to the suppression of the pike altogether. Gustavus Adolphus, to whom the mind naturally reverts whenever the early development of the system of modern warfare is the subject of consideration, was the very first who had a glimpse of the true state of things. He ventured to form in line, against cavalry, infantry composed almost exclusively of arquebusiers. He merely said to them, "Fire at fifteen paces!

It is remarkable in these discussions on the relative merits of the pike and the gun, that there should have been no allusion to the bayonet.

The sword, in the 16th century, in its blade presents several varieties of form; and the arrangement and details of its hilt generally are complicated in their character. In order to be enabled clearly to understand descriptions of the swords of this century, it will be necessary first clearly to define certain technical terms that have been used to distinguish different parts of this weapon.78

The blade (lame) comprises the following subdivisions :The tongue (soie) is the spike which usually forms a prolongation of the blade, and which is fixed into the hilt in order to join the hilt and the blade together; the heel (talon), the uppermost part of the blade itself, is next to the hilt, and it is