it was agreed that a city might not be besieged until the non-combatants had been given time to get away from the ensuing bombardment and starvation, that the victors holding occupied territory must be responsible for the lives of the inhabitants, that prisoners of wars must not only be spared but adequately fed and housed, that surgeons, nurses and stretcher-bearers must have every reasonable opportunity to rescue and succor the wounded; finally that certain “barbarous” methods of killing, such as explosive bullets and poison gases, might not be used. And the military clan of all nations generally accepted this code as the law and the gospel; they had been bred in the idea of chivalry, and had developed a beautiful and strict conception of professional ethics which implied truth and honor toward their own, and a sense of mercy toward their enemies. With such an attitude toward war, the nations entered the unprecedented struggle of 1914–18.
In the meantime, another current had been running among the European peoples; it is necessary to understand that in order to understand the present situation. In the period since the religious wars, in general during a long period before that, warfare had settled into the hands of professional armies, officered by the aristocracy, recruited in general from the dregs of the population, padded with mercenary soldiers of fortune. These forces were comparatively small, even in time of war.
In 1704, Marlborough won the battle of Blen-
