# 36. Reasons why the French have been, and still are, looked upon in the Beginning of a Battle as more than Men, and afterwards as less than Women

The ardoura of the Gaul who challenged any Roman on the banks of the river Anio to single combat, which led to a fight between him and Titus Manlius, reminds me of what Titus Livy several times says of the Gauls, namely, that in the beginning of a battle they are more than men, but in the fighting that follows they turn out worse than women. As to how this comes about, many think that nature has made them so, which is no doubt true, but it does not follow from this that the nature which makes them ardent at the start could not be so regulated by rules as to keep them ardent right up to the end.

In proof of this let me point out that armies are of three types. In the first there is both ardourb and order. Now order promotes both ardour and virtù as it did in the case of the Romans; for, during the whole course of their history one finds that there was good order in their armies, which military discipline of long standing had introduced. In a well-disciplined army, no one should perform any action except in accordance with regulations. Hence in the Roman army – which, since it conquered the world, should be taken as a model by all other armies – we find that no one ate or slept or went wenching or performed any other action, military or domestic, without instructions from the consul. Armies which act otherwise are not true armies; and if they do anything of note they do it through ardour and impetuosity, not through valour. But when disciplined virtù uses its ardour in the right way and at the right time, no difficulties dismay an army or cause it to lose courage. For good discipline stimulates courage and ardour, in that it strengthens the hope of victory, which is never wanting so long as discipline remains.

The opposite of all this happens in those armies in which there is ardour but no discipline, as was the case with the Gauls, who in their fighting were wholly lacking in method; for if their first attack did not succeed, they faltered, since the ardour on which they relied was not sustained by disciplined valour, and there was nothing else on which they could rely when their ardour cooled. The Romans, on the other hand, made light of dangers since their discipline was good; and, since they did not despair of victory, they remained firm and dogged, and fought with the same courage and the same virtù at the end as at the start; nay, when stimulated by a fight, they always grew more ardent.

The third type of army is one in which there exists neither a natural ardour, nor yet discipline to supplement it; as is the case with Italian armies in our day, which are quite useless and never win unless they come across an army which happens for some reason to run away. There is no need to cite further instances, since every day they afford evidence of how utterly lacking they are in valour. So that, however, what Titus Livy says may make it plain to all how good soldiery should be made and how worthless soldiery are made, I propose to cite the speech which Papirius Cursor made when he wanted to reprove Fabius, his master of horse. What he said was: ‘No one would have respect either for men or for the gods; they would obey neither the edicts of generals nor the auspices; soldiers without provisions, would wander about here and there alike in peaceful and in hostile territory; forgetful of their oath, they would discharge themselves from the army without authority and when it pleased them; they would leave the colours almost unguarded, and neither assemble nor dismiss at the word of command; they would fight by day or night whether the place were suitable or unsuitable, and with or without orders from the general; they would keep neither to their regiments nor to their ranks; but, like a band of robbers, were a blind and tumultuous, rather than a disciplined and dutiful, soldiery.’ And in this passage applied, it will at once be seen whether the soldiery of our day is blind and tumultuous or disciplined and dutiful, and how far it falls short of what we commonly call soldiery, and how far removed it is from being either ardent and disciplined, like the Romans, or just simply ardent, like the Gauls.