German Influence on British Cavalry — Story, Setting & Ideas

A Preface That Frames the Debate

Childers uses the preface to establish his authority and purpose. He references his previous book and Lord Roberts's introduction, then zeroes in on von Bernhardi's work as a 'brilliant and authoritative treatise' that risks becoming a standard text unless challenged. The author's strategy is to expose contradictions within von Bernhardi's own arguments and between German regulations and practical warfare. He insists that the 'indispensable condition' for cavalry revival is to 'sweep away root and branch the tactical system founded on the lance and sword' and replace it with one based on the rifle. This opening section signals that the essay will be a polemic, not a neutral survey, and that Childers will rely on close reading of official manuals and von Bernhardi's text.

Dissecting the German Regulations

In the middle excerpts, Childers performs a line-by-line critique of German cavalry regulations as interpreted by von Bernhardi. He highlights a key contradiction: the regulations demand that cavalry 'know at four miles what the composition, strength, and intentions of the enemy are,' yet the prescribed echelon system assumes the enemy is no stronger than one's own force—a 'childlike scheme' suitable only for peace maneuvers. Childers quotes von Bernhardi's own admission that 'only by a protracted action can the enemy be forced to disclose his strength and intentions,' and that such action requires fire. But he then notes that von Bernhardi immediately undercuts this by forbidding fire-action unless the enemy is known to be greatly inferior. This 'deadly instinct for self-refutation' becomes a recurring theme.

The Problem of Firepower and Mounted Attack

Childers continues his forensic analysis by examining von Bernhardi's treatment of specific regulations. Regulation No. 519, which directs cavalry to 'break through detachments of all arms,' is dismissed by von Bernhardi as unrealistic—yet Childers points out that mounted riflemen in the South African War routinely did just that. Regulation No. 403, which insists on personal observation by the commander for offensive action, is shown to be absurd under modern fire conditions: 'one brigade will often fight on foot, the other mounted,' making centralized control impossible. Childers's method is to let von Bernhardi's own words condemn him, while also drawing on British combat experience to argue that the German model is both inconsistent and inferior. The tone is caustic, with phrases like 'poor cavalry!' and 'true comment, but how futile!'

A Call for Independence and Reform

Throughout the essay, Childers returns to his central thesis: British cavalry must abandon the cult of the arme blanche and embrace the rifle. He argues that the German regulations, despite their prestige, are internally contradictory and unsuited to modern warfare. The excerpts show him contrasting von Bernhardi's poetic exhortations—'the enemy's fire must not paralyze the id'—with the practical realities of fire-swept battlefields. Childers's own prose is sharp and argumentative, aiming to provoke readers into questioning received doctrine. He does not claim to offer a complete alternative system, but insists that the first step is to recognize the chaos and break free from 'the demoralizing habit of imitating foreign models.'

Readers approaching this essay should treat it as a polemical intervention in a specific historical debate, not as a comprehensive manual. Childers assumes familiarity with his earlier work and with von Bernhardi's text, so newcomers may benefit from reading those first. The essay's value lies in its close textual criticism and its insistence on evidence from actual combat—particularly the South African War—over abstract doctrine. Pay attention to how Childers uses von Bernhardi's own words to build his case, and note the recurring tension between official regulations and practical experience.

There's something almost melancholy in how Childers watches the cavalry cling to sabers while the rifle waits in the wings—doctrine outliving its usefulness. It reminds me of another quiet reckoning, the one in The Colored Regulars in the United States Army — Context and Discussion, where courage had to argue with prejudice for its own proof. Both books feel like old letters from a past that couldn't quite see itself.