82

80

will not allow this. I was led, therefore, inevitably to discuss
the primary order with reference to the way it would lend itself
to such conversions as I thought desirable for obtaining an advan-
tage. It was in this way, and not because I wished here to discuss
the orders of collision on their respective merits, that I was led
to bring before you certain forms of concentration. (You will see
(Table I) that my complete scheme contemplates a full discussion
of orders and their parries.)

Nevertheless I did bring forward certain plans which necessa-
rily invited criticism. I wish to say about them two things.
First that I have not yet given them exhaustive study, and am unable
to assert that they are not open to a parry which will put the as-
sailant in a worse position than before.

Second that these plans seem to me upon the whole to conform to a
correct principle, which I did not formulate as I wrote them, viz:
the concentration they propose is made upon the weaker point of
the enemy's order. E.G. When the enemy approaches in narrow col-
umn, the concentrations proposed are first upon the head which is
weak; whereas when he comes on in column of broad front or in line,
concentration is attempted on the flank which is weak, because the
formation is shallow, avoiding the head. (Germs for Thought.)

The essence of my system, I think, lies in adopting a formation
which while good for artillery fire, distinctly contemplates a
change which the enemy cannot foreknow; and which lends itself to
such a change by its elastic character.