# CHAPTER 36 — The Reasons Why the French Have Been and Are Still Considered More Than Men at the Outset of a Battle and, Later on, Less Than Women

The ferocity of that Gaul who provoked some Roman, near the River Anio, to engage him in combat, and then the struggle between him and Titus Manlius, reminds me of what Livy says on many occasions: that is, at the beginning of a battle the French * are more than men, and then as the fighting continues, they turn out to be less than women. In considering the reason for this, many believe that their nature is constituted in this way, something which I believe to be true; but it is not, therefore, true that their nature, which makes them ferocious at the beginning, could not be regulated through some art in such a way that would keep them ferocious up to the end.

To prove this, let me say that armies are of three kinds: the first possesses both fury and order, * because fury and exceptional skill arise from order, as it did with the Romans; it is evident in all the histories that their army displayed good organization, which military discipline had introduced over a long period of time. In a well-organized army, no one should engage in any action except in accordance with the rules, and for this reason, in the Roman army—which, having conquered the world, should serve as an example to all other armies—they did not eat, sleep, frequent whores, or undertake any action either military or domestic without orders from the consul. For armies that do otherwise are not true armies, and if they do make a showing of themselves in some way, they do it out of fury and impetuosity and not through exceptional skill. But where well-organized skill employs its fury in the right way and at the right time, no difficulty will make it cowardly or lacking in courage, because good institutions renew it in its courage and its fury, nourished by the hope of victory, which is never lacking as long as institutions are sound. The opposite occurs in those armies where there is fury and not order, like those of the French, who usually failed in battle, because when they did not succeed in winning on the first charge, and the fury in which they placed so much hope was not sustained by any well-organized skill, so that they had nothing other than fury upon which to rely, they failed as soon as that cooled. * On the contrary, the Romans, fearing dangers less because of their good organization and having no doubt about victory, fought firmly and stubbornly with the same courage and skill at the conclusion as at the beginning; more than that, spurred on by the fight, they always grew more ardent. The third kind of army possesses neither natural fury nor acquired order, like the Italian armies in our times, which are completely useless, and if they do not happen to meet an army that for some reason runs away, they will never emerge victorious. Without citing other examples, they can be seen every day giving proof that they possess no skill whatsoever.

Since, through Livy’s testimony, everyone can understand how a good militia must be created and how a bad one is created, I would like to cite the words spoken by Papirius Cursor when he wanted to punish Fabius (his master of horse); he said: ‘No one would have respect either for men or for the gods; neither edicts of generals nor auspices would be regarded; without leave of absence soldiers would roam around in peaceful or hostile territory alike; with no thought of their oath they would discharge themselves by their own permission when they liked; the standards would be abandoned through lack of numbers to guard them; the army would not muster to order, and would fight regardless of day or night, good or bad position, order or prohibition of their general, keeping neither to ranks nor formation, so that army life would become a blind and casual kind of brigandage instead of a long-established and dedicated service.’ * Through this text, it is possible, therefore, to see quite easily if the militia of our times is blind and haphazard or sworn to duty through solemn oaths; the degree to which it lacks any similarity to what can be called a militia, and how far it is from being full of fury and well organized, like the Roman army, or even simply full of fury, like the French.