But these reflections belong properly to tactics, and are only introduced here by way of example for the sake of greater clearness.  What Strategy has to say on the different objects of the combat will appear in the chapters which touch upon these objects.  Here we have only a few general observations to make, first, that the importance of the object decreases nearly in the order as they stand above, therefore, that the first of these objects must always predominate in the great battle; lastly, that the two last in a defensive battle are in reality such as yield no fruit, they are, that is to say, purely negative, and can, therefore, only be serviceable, indirectly, by facilitating something else which is positive.  It is, therefore, A bad sign of the strategic situation if battles of this kind become too frequent.

CHAPTER VI.  DURATION OF THE COMBAT

If we consider the combat no longer in itself but in relation to the other forces of War, then its duration acquires a special importance.

This duration is to be regarded to a certain extent as a second subordinate success.  For the conqueror the combat can never be finished too quickly, for the vanquished it can never last too long.  A speedy victory indicates a higher power of victory, a tardy decision is, on the side of the defeated, some compensation for the loss.

This is in general true, but it acquires a practical importance in its application to those combats, the object of which is a relative defence.

Here the whole success often lies in the mere duration.  This is the reason why we have included it amongst the strategic elements.

The duration of a combat is necessarily bound up with its essential relations.  These relations are, absolute magnitude of force, relation of force and of the different arms mutually, and nature of the country.  Twenty thousand men do not wear themselves out upon one another as quickly as two thousand:  we cannot resist an enemy double or three times our strength as long as one of the same strength; a cavalry combat is decided sooner than an infantry combat; and a combat between infantry only, quicker than if there is artillery(*) as well; in hills and forests we cannot advance as quickly as on a level country; all this is clear enough.

     (*) The increase in the relative range of artillery and the
     introduction of shrapnel has altogether modified this
     conclusion.

From this it follows, therefore, that strength, relation of the three arms, and position, must be considered if the combat is to fulfil an object by its duration; but to set up this rule was of less importance to us in our present considerations than to connect with it at once the chief results which experience gives us on the subject.