recorded of combat between mounted men, and to the best of my belief none has occurred.
"Is it, then, that those who advocate the substitution of mounted infantry for cavalry are in the right; that the lancer, hussar, and dragoon of picturesque memory have become obsolete in these days of the breechloading rifle? Almost it would seem so. But for two important considerations, the case for mounted infantry might well be deemed as proved. These considerations, however, are of such a nature as to lead the observer to directly opposite conclusions: to conclude actually that cavalry pure and simple is as useful to the army of to-day as it was to the army of Napoleon's day; and that it is totally erroneous to suppose that mounted infantry can be an efficient substitute for cavalry. The cause of the effectiveness of Japanese cavalry is not far to seek. The men are the most intelligent of Japanese soldiers, and their many fine patrol performances are evidence of the sound methods in which they have been trained. Their weakness lies in the poor quality of the horses, and the fact that the Russian cavalry outnumbers them by six to one. Marked inferiority of force, in all forms of rivalry, is a fatal disadvantage, and it is for this reason that the Japanese have failed to shine in the rôle which experience has assigned to cavalry. The Russian cavalry, on the other hand, is estimated to number 30,000 sabres, a force of mounted men which, in the circumstances,
