---
Title: The Tribune and the War (1855)
Description: Leading article of the New-York Daily Tribune pointing to the confirmation of its military articles by The Times (the Russian 24- and 32-pound field-howitzers at Inkermann) and by the new edition of Sir Howard Douglas’s Naval Gunnery.
Author: Friedrich Engels
Date: 1855-02-03
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1855%20The%20Tribune%20and%20the%20War
---


*Published unsigned as a leading article in the* New-York Daily Tribune*, No. 4304, February 3, 1855, p. 4; MEGA² (I/14) gives it in its appendix as of doubtful attribution, an article by Friedrich Engels reworked by the editors of the Tribune. Text from the original newspaper (Library of Congress, Chronicling America). [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1855%20La%20Tribune%20y%20la%20guerra).*

So far as we are aware, The Tribune is the only journal in Europe or America which has attempted regularly to judge the events of the war by the principles of military science, and to put its readers in a position to understand and appreciate these events from a military as well as a political point of view. In undertaking this duty, we knew that although we might secure the approbation, if not always the agreement in opinion, of all competent persons, we should not fail to be met with the pooh-poohs of the ignorant and captious, to whom it must seem a great presumption for American journalists, at such a distance from the scene of operations, to criticise the movements of accomplished Generals and veteran armies. In this expectation we have not been disappointed; and, though the sneerers have gradually been silenced as events have corroborated our conclusions, and as the intelligent public has admitted the value and utility of our humble labors, it may still not be improper for us to adduce several instances in which our statements and strictures find a striking confirmation from sources beyond question.

It will be recollected that the British officers and British newspaper correspondents, not content with the actual and undisputed glory their soldiers had earned at Inkermann, attempted to exaggerate the affair by stating that the Russians, on that day, not only had 24-pounders, but even 32-pound field-guns in battery, against which enormous calibers the British nine and twelve-pound guns had no chance. A great deal was said about the neglect and incapacity of the British Government in not having field artillery equal to that of its opponents, and a cry was set up for 24-pound and 32-pound field-guns, which was all the more strenuous, as people then began to find out what egregious blundering had presided over all the arrangements for the campaign. At that time The Tribune alone, of all public organs, stated plainly that it was nonsense to talk about field-guns of such heavy caliber; that the whole mistake arose from the general ignorance of the British officers, united with their love of boasting; that the 24-pound and 32-pound Russian guns were neither more nor less than field-howitzers, having the bore of 24-pounders and 32-pounders respectively, which howitzers, throwing a hollow shot of little weight, and requiring a small charge only, could be made very light in metal, and corresponded in weight and range with 6-pounder and 12-pounder field-guns; that, in fact, every British field battery of either 6, 9, or 12-pounders had one of the above howitzers attached to it, so that the very thing demanded to be done by the British Government had actually been done long since. While we published this information in New-York, the discussion about these new-fashioned field-guns, went on briskly in London. The very writers in *The London Times*, and elsewhere, who were utterly ignorant of the fact that they were merely clamoring for the restoration of a system of artillery superseded ever since the beginning of the eighteenth century, (before 1700, such heavy calibers were taken into the field, but abandoned with the progress of the art of war,)—these very people pretended to know from particular sources, that the Russians *did* take no lighter guns into the field than 16, 24 and 32-pounders, and even stated the number of horses (up to twenty-four) which were attached, four a-breast, to each of these guns. Now, though the equipment of the Russian field artillery is fixed by published regulations, and though the horrible roads of Russia are known well enough, one might yet begin to doubt in the face of such detailed statements. But it happens that *The London Times*, of Jan. 15, contains a letter settling the question. A British Captain of Artillery, present before Sevastopol, and who measured, by order, the Russian shot, has seen some of these wonderful statements, and does not allow them to pass uncorrected. The guns in question actually were but the species of howitzers alluded to. The Tribune had guessed the secret of the mystification under which all Great Britain labored for nearly two months.

We have more than once had occasion to quote the work of Sir Howard Douglas on Naval Gunnery, the acknowledged standard work upon the subject. Sir Howard, although he writes on a naval theme, is an officer in the Royal Artillery, and equally competent to give an opinion on land-warfare. His celebrated book has just been published in a new edition, augmented by an appendix, stating how far the experience of the present war has confirmed or verified the views hitherto held upon naval warfare, and including also a general critique of the military operations in the East. We may justly say that, with the exception of some facts hitherto unknown, and accessible to the author by his official position only, there is not a word in his treatise which had not been anticipated, months ago, by the military articles of The Tribune. The inefficiency of fleets against casemated forts, if well constructed and well defended, is especially and prominently asserted in the case of both Bomarsund and Sevastopol. The uselessness of shells against masonry, exhibited by us long ago, while none of Sir Howard’s former editions said a word upon the subject, is now stated upon the faith of official reports from Bomarsund. Our opinion, that in towers and casemated forts, like those of Bomarsund, a breach could only be made by heavy siege batteries, of at least 32-pounders, long guns, heavy enough to stand strong charges with solid shot, and firing always upon the same spot, just as in the old method of breaching, while the insecurity of aim from aboard ship could never produce a breach before the ships were destroyed—this opinion is entirely confirmed by Douglas in a series of details of the highest military interest, but which we refrain from repeating, the capture of Bomarsund being now a very old affair. As to the Crimean campaign, Douglas but reiterates our criticisms, softened, of course, by the influence of his position as an Englishman and a British officer under the Commander-in-Chief. Still he comes to the same result: the expedition was undertaken with too weak a force, whence the incomplete victory at the Alma, and the flank-march to Balaklava, a fault in itself, but caused by the apparent necessity of placing the army in a strong defensive position against any attack from the rear, whereby, however, the north side of the fortress was left uninvested, and the besiegers were placed in the condition of being besieged in their turn. In fact, taking all the main points of Douglas’s criticism—even those based upon facts buried in official unpublished correspondence—it is seen that, with incomplete and contradictory evidence to work upon, and while events had not, as yet, developed all their consequences, The Tribune managed to come to the same results which he now obtains *after* the fact and from superior and unpublished sources of information. This corroboration of our judgment on questions of so great military importance, may be verified by an examination of the appendix to the new edition of Sir Howard’s work. The support of so eminent an authority affords us a gratification, which we may surely be pardoned for thus referring to.