each battalion of four companies or 1000 rifles. The company of
250 rifles is commanded by a captain, who is mounted. In France
the company has four sections, commanded in war by the three
subalterns and the “adjudant” (company sergeant-major); the
sections are further grouped in pairs to constitute pelotons (platoons)
or half-companies under the senior of the two section leaders. In
peace there are two subalterns only, and the peloton is the normal
junior officer’s command. The battalion is commanded by a major
(commandant or strictly chef de bataillon), the regiment (three or
four battalions) by a colonel with a lieutenant-colonel as second.
An organization of 3-battalion regiments and 3-company battalions
was proposed in 1910.
In Germany, where what we have called the continental company originated, the regiment is of three battalions under majors, and the battalion of four companies commanded by captains. The company is divided into three Züge (sections), each under a subaltern, who has as his second a sergeant-major, a “vice-sergeant-major” or a “sword-knot ensign” (aspirant officer). In war there is one additional officer for company. The Zug at war-strength has therefore about 80 rifles in the ranks, as compared with the French “section” of 50, and the British section of 30.
The system prevailing in the United States since the reorganization of 1901 is somewhat remarkable. The regiment, which is a tactical as well as an administrative unit, consists of three battalions. Each battalion has four companies of (at war-strength) 3 officers and 150 rifles each. The regiment in war therefore consists of about 1800 rifles in three small and handy battalions of 600 each. The circumstances in which this army serves, and in particular the maintenance of small frontier posts, have always imposed upon subalterns the responsibilities of small independent commands, and it is fair to assume that the 75 rifles at a subaltern’s disposal are regarded as a tactical unit.
In sum, then, the infantry battalion is in almost every country about 1000 rifles strong in four companies. In the United States it is 600 strong in four companies, and in Great Britain it is 1000 strong in eight. The captain’s command is usually 200 to 250 men, in the United States 150, and in Great Britain 120. The lieutenant or second lieutenant commands in Germany 80 rifles, in France 50, in the United States 75, as a unit of fire and manœuvre. In Great Britain he commands, with relatively restricted powers, 60.
A short account of the infantry equipments—knapsack or valise, belt, haversack, &c.—in use in various countries will be found in Uniforms, Naval and Military. The armament of infantry is, in all countries, the magazine rifle (see Rifle) and bayonet (q.v.), for officers and for certain under-officers sword (q.v.) and pistol (q.v.). Ammunition (q.v.) in the British service is carried (a) by the individual soldier, (b) by the reserves (mules and carts) in regimental charge, some of which in action are assembled from the battalions of a brigade to form a brigade reserve, and (c) by the ammunition columns.
Bibliography.—The following works are selected to show (1) the historical development of the arm, and (2) the different “doctrines” of to-day as to its training and functions:—Ardant du Picq, Études sur le combat; C. W. C. Oman, The Art of War: Middle Ages; Biottot, Les Grands Inspirés—Jeanne d’Arc; Hardy de Périni, Batailles françaises; C. H. Firth, Cromwell’s Army; German official history of Frederick the Great’s wars, especially Erster Schlesische Krieg, vol. i.; Susane, Histoire de l’infanterie française; French General Staff, La Tactique au XVIII me—l’infanterie and La Tactique et la discipline dans les armées de la Révolution—Général Schauenbourg; J. W. Fortescue, History of the British Army; Moorsom, History of the 52nd Regiment; de Grandmaison, Dressage de l’infanterie (Paris, 1908); works of W. v. Scherff; F. N. Maude, Evolution of Infantry Tactics and Attack and Defence; [Meckel] Ein Sommernachtstraum (Eng. trans, in United Service Magazine, 1890); J. Meckel, Taktik; Malachowski, Scharfe- und Revuetaktik; H. Langlois, Enseignements de deux guerres; F. Hoenig, Tactics of the Future and Twenty-four Hours of Moltke’s Strategy (Eng. trans.); works of A. von Boguslowski; British Officers’ Reports on the Russo-Japanese War; H. W. L. Hime, Stray Military Papers; Grange, “Les Réalités du champ de bataille—Woerth” (Rev. d’infanterie, 1908–1909); V. Lindenau, “The Boer War and Infantry Attack” (Journal R. United Service Institution, 1902–1903); Janin, “Aperçus sur la tactique—Mandchourie” (Rev. d’infanterie, 1909); Soloviev, “Infantry Combat in the Russo-Jap. War” (Eng. trans. Journal R.U.S.I., 1908); British Official Field Service Regulations, part i. (1909), and Infantry Training (1905); German drill regulations of 1906 (Fr. trans.); French drill regulations of 1904; Japanese regulations 1907 (Eng. trans.). The most important journals devoted to the infantry arm are the French official Revue d’infanterie (Paris and Limoges), and the Journal of the United States Infantry Association (Washington, D. C). (C. F. A.)
INFANT SCHOOLS. The provision in modern times of
systematized training for children below the age when elementary
education normally begins may be dated from the village school
at Waldbach founded by Jean Frédéric Oberlin in 1774. Robert
Owen started an infant school at New Lanark in 1800, and
great interest in the question was taken in Great Britain during
the early years of the 19th century, leading to the foundation in
1836 of the Home and Colonial School Society for the training
of teachers in infant schools; this in turn reacted upon other
countries, especially Germany. Further impetus and a new
direction were given to the movement by Friedrich W. A.
Froebel, and the methods of training adopted for children
between the ages of three and six have in most countries been
influenced by, if not based on, that system of directed activities
which was the foundation of the type of “play-school” called
by him the Kinder Garten, or “children’s garden.” The growing
tendency in England to lay stress on the mental training of very
young children, and to use the “infant school” as preparatory
to the elementary school, has led to a considerable reaction;
medical officers of health have pointed out the dangers of
infection to which children up to the age of five are specially
liable when congregated together—also the physical effects
of badly ventilated class-rooms, and there is a consensus of
opinion that formal mental teaching is directly injurious before
the age of six or even seven years. At the same time the increase
in the industrial employment of married women, with the
consequent difficulty of proper care of young children by the
mother in the home, has somewhat shifted the ground from a
purely educational to a social and physical aspect. While it
is agreed that the ideal place for a young child is the home under
the supervision of its mother, the present industrial conditions
often compel a mother to go out to work, and leave her children
either shut up alone, or free to play about the streets, or in the
care of a neighbour or professional “minder.” In each case
the children must suffer. The provision by a public authority
of opportunities for suitable training for such children seems
therefore a necessity. The moral advantages gained by freeing
the child from the streets, by the superintendence of a trained
teacher over the games, by the early inculcation of habits of
discipline and obedience; the physical advantages of cleanliness
and tidiness, and the opportunity of disclosing incipient diseases
and weaknesses, outweigh the disadvantages which the opponents
of infant training adduce. It remains to give a brief account of
what is done in Great Britain, the United States of America,
and certain other countries. A valuable report was issued for
the English Board of Education by a Consultative Committee
upon the school attendance of children below the age of five
(vol. 22 of the Special Reports, 1909), which also gives some
account of the provision of day nurseries or crèches for
babies.
United Kingdom.—Up to 1905 it was the general English practice since the Education Act of 1870 for educational authorities to provide facilities for the teaching of children between three and five years old whose parents desired it. In 1905, of an estimated 1,467,709 children between those ages, 583,268 were thus provided for in England and Wales. In 1905 the objections, medical and educational, already stated, coupled with the increasing financial strain on the local educational authorities, led to the insertion in the code of that year of Article 53, as follows: “Where the local education authority have so determined in the case of any school maintained by them, children who are under five years may be refused admission to that school.” In consequence in 1907 the numbers were found to have fallen to 459,034 out of an estimated 1,480,550 children, from 39.74% in 1905 to 31%. In the older type of infant school stress was laid on the mental preparation of children for the elementary teaching which was to come later. This forcing on of young children was encouraged by the system under which the government grant was allotted; children in the infant division earned an annual grant of 17s. per head, on promotion to the upper school this would be increased to 22s. In 1909 the system was altered; a rate of 21s. 4d. was fixed as the grant for all children above five, and the grant for those below the age was reduced to 13s. 4d. Different methods of training the teachers in these schools as well as the children themselves have been now generally adopted. These methods are largely based on the Froebelian plan, and greater attention is being paid to physical development. In one respect England is perhaps behind the more progressive of other European
