object, whereas reason only tends to facilitate the attainment of the object.
"Let us assume that there exists an army which bases success in battle on fire action, and takes for granted that the enemy will not be able to get near enough to make a bayonet attack. If this army were to encounter another army which, without undervaluing the effect of fire, remembers the bayonet at the proper time, it would be filled with the most dreadful dismay when the enemy actually assails it with the bayonet. With modern rifles, bullets are unquestionably a good substitute for the bayonet at close quarters, but this is true only of troops who do not fear annihilation, i.e., troops trained to use the bayonet and capable of closing with the enemy after firing. If this is not the case, such firing at close quarters is a pure waste of ammunition, since men who are afraid to close with the enemy, if necessary at such a moment, will usually fire into the air.
"If the soldier has been taught, however, to annihilate the enemy from a distance and from behind cover, he will naturally prefer this mode of inflicting losses, since he runs very little risk of getting hurt, and will, moreover, acquire an aversion for exposing himself to danger, i.e., he will shrink from bayonet work. Hence, if we attach too much importance to marksmanship, we produce a more or less trained soldier, who may possibly be a very good shot at long ranges, but who is not especially inclined to take his chances in a bayonet fight. Incidentally, target practice develops the mentality of the man, but does not improve his morale." Dragomirov.
Of every 100 wounds, the following percentages were produced by cutting weapons:
Campaign of 1859 1.67%
Campaign of 1864 4.0%
Campaign of 1866 (Prussians) 5.4%
St. Privat (Germans) 1.0%
Russo-Turkish war 0.9%
